Akvod said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Wiwefak said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Wiwefak said:
Kain_kusanagi you should stop posting already. You are making yourself look bad. We are basically comparing at the moment PSN with Xbox live. Basically PSn does everything that Xbox live does and for free. PSN+ offers a lot more for a cheaper fee and it is optional. So at this point we should be focusing on PSN, Nintendo, Steam which provide a free service.
Why do you keep bringing Halo up? Doesn't make sense. The topic here is " Is it worth to pay for something that you can get for free on any other platform" and you start talking about PS players can't get Halo. Another example how you lack arguments and just throwing random stuff here and there trying to justify this? I would respected you more, but with the Halo posts. No words.
|
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."
|
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.
|
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).
|
