Kain_kusanagi: You basically said all the time, that the fee for Xbox Live isn't a big deal so nobody would care. But when it comes to PSN+, 4 $ a month become debatable all of a sudden? I mean, even if you don't like any of the games on the service, which would be extremely unlikely for a gamer, it's just 4 $ a month. Who cares, right?

Halo is just one example of what PSN doesn't offer that XBL does. That's the point. If you want to play XBox exclusives online you need XBL Gold and if that means a tiny fee so be it. I've said many times that if XBLG was free I'd be happy about that. Free PSN does not replace the need to play Xbox exclusives. That's the heart of the issue. Sony fanboys act like nobody needs XBL because PSN exists, but you can't play games like Halo on PSN. As good as Killzone is, it is no more a replacement for Halo than Halo is a replacement for Killzone.

I made this topic because I'm tired of the argument. My opinion of PS+ and the words I've used describing it have never been full of the hate that gets spewed at XBL.

But is Halo a service? You are confusing games with services, by that logic you could say Uncharted is an example. The new God of War. You can play them online on PSN, but you cant play them on Xbox live. As Akvod say "You're conflating exclusive games with the services/functions LIVE, PSN, Steam, etc give."

Yep, it's not enough to care about and I don't care. I don't subscribe to the jelly of the month club either. I don't feel like buying Jelly I might not want or already have the same way I don't feel like buying PSN games that I may not want, already have, and lose if I stjop subscribing. But if people want to subscribe to Jelly or PSn games I'll qoute myself, " I'm glad you like it." kain_kusanagi on 12/05/12

The problem I have is that those who don't want to pay for XBLG are offended by those that pay for it and want them to give up games like Halo to play on PSN. They makes threads about it all the time. This forum can't go a week without someone insulting XBL users and if someone defends it they are attacked from all angles as if XBL goes into peoples houses at night to mess up the place.

So even in light of the PSN getting closer and closer and now being equal in offerings where does the superiority come from? It cant be games. Theres no servers Microsoft pays for, they slip you the bill and the person with the best speed is the master of the server.

No, that IS the point. Xbox exlusive require XBLG and they are worth the price of entry. If you disagree that's fine, but stop acting like it's some injustice that to play Halo 4  you have to pay a tiny fee. I'd pay the same fee if Sony required it and Nintendo too. I'm just tired of all the XBLG hate when people act like giving up games as amazing as Halo 4 to switch to PSN is the only acceptable action. As I've said many times if XBLG was free I'd be happy. But it's not so I pay and I'd rather not have to justify enjoying games like Halo that PSN does not have and can not replace.

Microtransactions.

I didn't make this thread to justify why MS charges for XBLG, that's not my job. I  made th is thread because people enjoy games like Halo, that PSN doesn't have, and they pay for XBLG to do so. It is the cost of admission. I'm tired of people being treated like idiots for enjoying amazing games like Halo 4 just because PSN is free. If you could play Halo 4 on PSN I'd cancel my XBLA subscription. Like I've said many times, if XBLG was free I'd be happy. I don't even like stuff like Hulu and Netflix being kept behind the Gold wall. What what I don't like even more are the attacks on those of use who enjoy games like Halo 4, Gears, etc.

Yeah, you know, haters gonna hate. Ain't nothing you can do about it. You just shouldn't take that too serious. Based on my experience, trolls leave pretty quick if you just ignore them. So I think it would be best if you just let it go and enjoy your experience with Xbox Live. Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't mean it's less fun. I'm also getting bashed almost every day just because I own a vita. But the system is one hell of a console nonetheless. 

But the question isn't a matter of value or willingness to pay. People are getting the sense that Microsoft is:

1) Charging for an essential feature. Similar to how people criticized EA for their "DLCs" in Mass Effect and other games, people feel that EA is essentially charging for things that should be part of the entire package.

2) Taking advantage of players who have already made a sunk investment/locked in. This is especially relevant for more casual gamers who only buy one consoles. People feel that Microsoft is taking advantage of players who bought the console, and are now either forced to pay more money or to be stuck with a console without any ability to play online.

3) Being uncompetitive. This isn't really an argument in and of itself, but more like a support for 1 and 2. People are getting that sense that Microsoft is charging for an essential feature that should be free, because other companies are doing so.

You saying "Well Microsoft has Halo", isn't really counterarguing that, but really just supporting it.

If you want to make it a debate of "does Microsoft have the right to take advantage of lock in, exclusive games, etc to make more money?" I and everyone else will throw their hands up and say "You win". Microsoft can do whatever's legal to make money.

But that doesn't stop people from criticizing companies like Microsoft, EA, etc for what they feel is unfair extraction of money, and in the long run, it's probably not good for your brand to do so, and won't be good when the switching costs get reduced (i.e. new console genration).