In the case of MS though, are they the ones keeping the Black Ops 2 servers up and running or is it Activision/Treyarch? If the latter why doesn't the money paid for Xbox Live go towards Activision? (the very arguement they had with Ms a couple of years back).

That said, you are right, there is little reason to why those who don't use the service have to argue against it but maybe they just aren't saying more than you need to know. But if 'they really want to use it', maybe they do but just can't justify paying that extra fee considering they have not been paying for it on PC, Playstation or Wii, they don't understand why they should have to pay for something they've had before for free from everyone else.

In any business, if I'm used to not having to pay for something, regardless of what it is then one day another company steps in and starts charging for the same thing I've had for free for many years, I'd complain, even if there are those that just don't mind and pay anyway.

There is a perfectly good reason to complain against others using Xbox Live. Everyone who does is demonstrating that they are willing to spend £40 a year on a very trivial improvement. Sony could look at this, slightly uprade beyond Xbox Live and charge £80? Nintendo spots this, overtakes and charges £120? Everyone who buys Xbox Live is paying for something we can get for free, and it could result in the rest of us having to pay.

It's also why we think there could be truth in rumours of the 720 not allowing used games or forcing a constant internet connection. Microsoft have realised they can push their loyal customers into a worse deal than the competition, and they'll love it anyway. Look at all the support they get in this thread, despite the fact that if everyone stopped paying for a month Gold would be free instantly. Everyone should be against it, as Sony and Nintendo might pick up on the fact that they would be a lot better off if they start screwing over their most loyal customers. Instead of PS+ and Ambassador Programs we'll get adverts and subscription fees, and the most loyal will defend it for them.

So even though this current generation of consoles is dieing Xbox Live certainly isn't.  In fact in their Earnings Report today it was confirmed that Live memberships were up by 18% and added 6 million new members in a year.

Now Ive seen many on this and other forums bashing Live and saying it has nothing on Playstation Plus but subscriptions and userbase certainly say otherwise.

So whats your opinion? Is the hate Live gets from some people unjustified?

Jealousy?

Its probably jealousy.

You will be paying for PSN on PS4

Im curious what youll say then

Will people -in their desperate attempt to defend their favourite brand- stop calling solid arguments "hate" ?

There is no way to sugar coat or justify MS making people pay for essentially part of a game they have bought. Here's what all the xbox "soldiers" do: they want to turn the discussion into a matter of services, justifying the cost. But that's is the thing, it's not a about the better value for money. It's about the very basic access to the online part of a game you own. With this generation online gaming being fundamental, MS invented a whole new market by charging people for something they already bought. If a game has a built in online component and you bought the damn thing you are entitled to play it. What MS did is sell you half a console.

When people start comparing services between psn or psn+ to Live, they consciously mislead the consumer. It's not about services but the game itself. It's not about paying for a better network or demos or dlc or access to an eshop or voice chat. It's about cutting you out from a core part of a game you own and divert the attention with other stuff you may or may not even want.

outlawauron said:
I think its a ripoff and I still pay for it. I HAVE to pay for it in order to take advantage of key gaming features and gameplay.