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

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - The reason why you pay for Xbox Live - An attempted Explanation

Well, no matter the reasoning, I greatly enjoy the convenience of Live.

For example, here's me on Live waiting for friends to join and have a Horde match of Gears 2:

-...waiting
-*Press Guide button and bring up friends list.
-Invite all who are playing Gears 2.
-Friend joins.
-"Hey man, what's up?" "Not much, u", etc,etc,etc
-"Hey no one else is joining, you got anyone from your list you can invite?"
-"Lemme check... uh... yup! Invited a few guys."
-Someone else joins
-New guy: "Ah, look, this guy's playing Call of Duty--screw that, man, get over here and play Gears XD"

In under a minute, we've got a full party, we're laughing, joking around, and keep in mind that I've never met any of these people in person, and there was no matchmaking involved.

THAT is why Live is awesome.



Could I trouble you for some maple syrup to go with the plate of roffles you just served up?

Tag, courtesy of fkusumot: "Why do most of the PS3 fanboys have avatars that looks totally pissed?"
"Ok, girl's trapped in the elevator, and the power's off.  I swear, if a zombie comes around the next corner..."
Around the Network
theprof00 said:
ummm check metacritic for top ps1 games

 

Just cause a console has some of the highest rated games dosent mean ill like it anymore,its still just an average console.



Sardauk said:

No matter what the blinded-PS3-fanboys-fools think, quality of service has a cost.

 

And I would rather spend some euros for a system that works, that has some SLA, is improving and futur proof.

 

The PSN is just a f*cking gimmick compared to XBL.

Thats it!

A gimmick? This coming from the guy with a Mii at the bottom of his posts! Are you kidding me?

And as you stated in another post, if you want a BMW and not a fiat, than get a PS3, I cannot believe you used that analogy to give a positive light to the 360.

Microsofts online service is better, but barely.

I want a web browser, I want HOME, I want Blu-Ray profile 2.0 movies, I even want Life with Playstation. And yes, I too want a BMW and not a FIAT, but especially what I want is for it all to be free!

... and that is why I want a PS3

I don't know who you are representing or how you became so one sided, but I think we can all agree Microsofts service does not offer enough of a difference to cost what it does, (compared to the PSN).

I can tell you Microsofts service is slightly better, but the PS3 has its advantages over it as well.

You must realize the truth, or at least the errors of your ways.

 



̶3̶R̶D̶   2ND! Place has never been so sweet.


ultraslick said:
Sardauk said:

No matter what the blinded-PS3-fanboys-fools think, quality of service has a cost.

 

And I would rather spend some euros for a system that works, that has some SLA, is improving and futur proof.

 

The PSN is just a f*cking gimmick compared to XBL.

Thats it!

A gimmick? This coming from the guy with a Mii at the bottom of his posts! Are you kidding me?

And as you stated in another post, if you want a BMW and not a fiat, than get a PS3, I cannot believe you used that analogy to give a positive light to the 360.

Microsofts online service is better, but barely.

I want a web browser, I want HOME, I want Blu-Ray profile 2.0 movies, I even want Life with Playstation. And yes, I too want a BMW and not a FIAT, but especially what I want is for it all to be free!

... and that is why I want a PS3

I don't know who you are representing or how you became so one sided, but I think we can all agree Microsofts service does not offer enough of a difference to cost what it does, (compared to the PSN).

I can tell you Microsofts service is slightly better, but the PS3 has its advantages over it as well.

You must realize the truth, or at least the errors of your ways.

 

Nice to know you want a computer,But i want a game machine,where i can pop in games and not have to worry about mandatory installs.

 



Garnett said:
theprof00 said:

well gta3 was released in october and xbox came out in november. Generally the first month sees a very large portion of the sales, so....

Between gta 1,2,and 3 sony was there. xbox was not. I'm just asking what kind of numbers are we talking about, you say "billions", but i don't think so, that's all.

I think Rock* might have done it free of charge or at least for less than what they would have lost. Rock* explosion happened on the Playstation brand. I would think they would be a little indebted to them. Especially when Sony is known for assisting in the development of games with specialty devs and such.

PS: You are not debating. You are arguing. Anyone who cannot give ps1 its proper due cannot be taken as a serious debater. I don't like Wii, but I give it a lot of credit, it is a great console.

PPS: gta3 was on pc by may 2002.

I Can understand why GTA 3 didnt come to xbox,cause when Xbox came out GTA 3 was gonna launch,But Vice city and SA were kept on PS2 cause Sony paid them,Who cares if Xbox was not there,Fact is GTA would sold  MORE if it was on Xbox,(Not saying it would of out sold PS2 version but it would sell some copys enought to make a profit).

 

Now...You say you cant take me serious because i dont give PS1 its props,Ok what did it have that made it oustandingly good?,Most games on PS1 were on N64,the ONLY good thing i can remember about PS1 was its games,and few games i remember,Just cause it has SONY on it does NOT mean its awesome.


Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 2000 98
2 Tekken 3 1998 96
3 Gran Turismo 1998 96
4 ISS Pro Evolution 2 2001 95
5 Final Fantasy IX 2000 94
6 Chrono Cross 2000 94
7 Metal Gear Solid 1998 94
8 Gran Turismo 2 1999 93
9 Street Fighter Alpha 3 1999 93
10 Castlevania: Symphony of the Night 1997 93
11 WipEout XL (2097) 1996 93
12 Vagrant Story 2000 92
13 Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1999 92
14 Final Fantasy VII 1997 92
15 PaRappa The Rapper 1997 92
16 Medal of Honor 1999 92
17 Colony Wars 1997 91
18 Tomb Raider 1996 91
19 Spyro: Year of the Dragon 2000 91
20 Resident Evil 1996 91
21 Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver 1999 91
22 Crash Bandicoot 3: Warped 1998 91
23 Ape Escape 1999 90
24 Syphon Filter 1999 90
25 Einhander 1998 90
26 Dance Dance Revolution 2001 90
27 WWF Smackdown 2: Know Your Role 2000 90
28 Colin McRae Rally 2.0 2000 90
29 Final Fantasy VIII 1999 90
30 Madden NFL 2001 2000 90

A lot of those games are firsts. Games that started on playstation. Several of them which maintained exclusivity and these are just 90+ games. there are 86 above 80. Franchises that have become huge on the PS brand.

The PS1 sold 100million consoles, the first time in history, and had an age range beyond traditional snes + sega demographics.

Need I remind you that a lot of games do very well when they are exclusive. Several developers have stated this. Multiplat is not always the answer. Exclusivity has a lot of perks and being payed money is not one of them. I just don't see where you have the right to say that Sony bought Rockstar Exclusivity.

Exclusivity is often referred to as a partnership. Techs from the platform help the developers in ways that improve the game and show them how to take advantage of the hardware to the fullest extent. The result, a better made game, which improves the company image and exclusive sales which helps the platform image.

Notice how the new exclusive games are developers who are breaking into the gaming world, and the multiplat games are generally from companies that have extensive backgrounds in the VG business.



Around the Network
Garnett said:
theprof00 said:
ummm check metacritic for top ps1 games

 

Just cause a console has some of the highest rated games dosent mean ill like it anymore,its still just an average console.

I know that, and that's why I said there is no point arguing/debating with you. Your opinion is not to like it and no matter how hard I try I cannot change that opinion. In that respect you are the one arguing, and I am the one debating, because I am open to changing but you aren't.

 



theprof00 said:
Garnett said:
theprof00 said:
ummm check metacritic for top ps1 games

 

Just cause a console has some of the highest rated games dosent mean ill like it anymore,its still just an average console.

I know that, and that's why I said there is no point arguing/debating with you. Your opinion is not to like it and no matter how hard I try I cannot change that opinion. In that respect you are the one arguing, and I am the one debating, because I am open to changing but you aren't.

 

 

Im glad that alot of good games were made on PS1,but its onyl because Sony didnt have competition,now look at them.



Yeah, the best selling console of all time (wii) and a console with a year lead (360) and yet what are those AAA rankings again?
wii:8
360: 17
ps3: 9
PS3 is sucking!!!!!

I'm just asking you where it says sony paid rockstar billions of dollars to get gta exclusive?

I made my point that new devs usually go exclusive and then become multiplat as time goes on. So show me this exclusivity payment.



theprof00 said:
Yeah, the best selling console of all time (wii) and a console with a year lead (360) and yet what are those AAA rankings again?
wii:8
360: 17
ps3: 9
PS3 is sucking!!!!!

I'm just asking you where it says sony paid rockstar billions of dollars to get gta exclusive?

I made my point that new devs usually go exclusive and then become multiplat as time goes on. So show me this exclusivity payment.

I never said this gen you silly duck, i mean last gen PS2 and Xbox :p

 

PS3 is not sucking.



what? you said they didn't have competition during ps1 era and now they do, how are you talking about ps2........wait a minute are you fucking with me!?!?!?!