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

Forums - Microsoft - Is 60 Euro Really That Much...

SmYsiZ on 16 August 2009

I'll never pay for online play ever again!!



 

 

Around the Network
Lolcislaw on 16 August 2009

I've had a month trial on Xbox Live and i played a bit SF IV and UFC Undisputed it was fun but i still cant get hooked on online gaming, maybe because i dislike shooters. In the UK 12 month costs around 34.99 which is not that much considering how much money im spending on booze, but for that price i can get a few good DLC's (Im planning to buy All Fallout DLC's on Tuesday when i get paid) or a game or 2 so at the moment im not planing to renew my Live.



slowmo on 16 August 2009
KylieDog said:
TheTruthHurts! said:
1 dinner out with my wife and 2 kids at a decent dining facility......or 1 years worth of the best online in console gaming. The choice is easy, XBox Live. I have a Gold membership, as well as my wife (after she got hooked on L4D she demanded her own account) so I guess make that 2 dinners.

I would gladly pay for PSN on my PS3 if it was comparable to Live......unfortunately with PSN, you get what you pay for.....literally. For a free service though, PSN is decent.......does lag a lot though....:(

 

PSN does not lag.

 

I wonder what exactly about it could lag?  Every single game uses different servers so unless you are trying to suggest that servers all over the world are magically lagging because they are connected to PSN you really should rethink that statement.

 

Perhaps you are suggesting the PS Store, but then in over a year of heavy use I found it to lag...oh, never.  Seems a bit different from the "'lot" you describe.   So cannot be that.

 

Perhaps you mean the friends menu and the time it loads up, but then it has a set speed and I cannot it recall it ever pausing which would indicate 'lag'.  Messages are also instant as it the text chat.

 

The moment I press a button on a menu the XMB responds, so there isn't any lag there either.

 

 

 

Sorry, I am stumped to what about PSN lags.   Are you sure you understand what lag is?

Both PSN and Live lag, I suggest neither of you understand what lag is if you honestly believe neither does. 

On topic though, I think the cost of Live isn't bad although customers outside the US are being shafted due to less features yet it costs more imo.



mibuokami on 16 August 2009
Slimebeast said:
mibuokami said:
Sardauk said:
mibuokami said:
Sardauk said:
libellule said:
free online gaming anyone ?

It is more than that.

Of course its more than that, but online gaming is the crux of Live Gold, if they made online gaming availible for Silver, you wouldn't even get 1 tenth of the Gold member they currently have.

Live is great and by far the best Online gaming expirience currently availible, saying that however PSN is also hardly a joke as you've stated. Sure its missing a few feature but it still a great alternative that doesn't cost me anything.

I agree with you that it is the best Online service at the moment and that we are forced to pay the price for it.

On the other hand, I'm still severly disppointed by PSN.

 

IMO, PSN is only a mix of copy/paste features while XBL is build around the NXE architecture, which allow direct/dynamic evolutions.

Thanks to NXE, the whole system "breath" when online.

Comparing the two systems via a list of features is the wrong approach...

 

Live is superior because its more intergrated, MS had a clear goal when the created the service and executed their plan with very little hiccup. The PSN by contrast is an ambitious but murky concept that was never fully fleshed out upon its inception and had to be proded by consumer demand and pressure from their competitor before it finally arrive at what it is today. For that I give Ms much kudo, much as I dislike their policy no one can deny that they brought about the 'online' revolution to this console generation.

I'm curious though, what exactly is your dissapointment with PSN? Is it purely base on the fact that it feels less intrinsic and intergrated when compare to Live? Or is their specific example you can quote? I'm not a very active Live/PSN member, I don't play online game very often and when I do, its usually with friend and on the PC, to me the most important feature of either service is the ability to play online.

The additional bells and whistle are nice, especially the downloadable games but I've yet to expirience a true dissapointment from either service, both give reliable online play, provide extended content both stand-alone & for my purchased games and neither has given me any major headaches, the only major flaw I will criticise PSN  for is the lack of cross-game voice chat function.

My expirience with gold membership is kinda lacking though, as I've only sample 1 month of it from a free coupon that came with my Lost Odyssey... Perhaps their is something I missed?


Yes. With Gold you can download demos one week earlier than Silver members.

I would label that as an artificial benefit created by MS, unless the demo was actually 'exclusive' I can generally get the same demo on PSN the same week as the gold member and a week ahead of silver. The fact that silver has to wait an additional week when compare to the PSN does not make the gold memebership more attractive than the PSN, it just puts it on a equal footing.




Xoj on 16 August 2009

not really, if u give a 60 everyday would enough for me =)

i am never payign for online, never have never will.



Around the Network
kitler53 on 16 August 2009

the competitors have free online so yeah, 60 euros > 0 euros

also, it's not really 60 euros is it. over the life of your console it is 600 euros (at a ten year life span). and for those not good at math, 600 euros >>> 0 euros.



Munkeh111 on 16 August 2009

Yeah, I have already paid for my game, I don't want to pay to get the online part. I have paid £40 for the game, I am not paying for it again. If I have a PS3 as well, why would I not just buy another PS3 game. And why does everyone say XBL is better than PSN? Certainly in terms of just laginess, that is just done to the game. As for cross game chat and invites, well that is something I don't care about



DirtyP2002 on 16 August 2009

just check special offers...

http://www.gamehubs.com/xbox-live-12-month-gold-membership-card-worldwide-compatible.html



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

piggychan on 16 August 2009

It's actually not bad cause I like the other stuff like exclusive developer interviews and demos plus other content.. including downloading straight onto the HDD and playing demo straight away

sure I be even happier if it was free but then I think about the dreamcast and gamecube having free online stuff and then the hacking..

ayway 60 euro isn't bad.. but then you gotta ask yourself why 7+ million World of Warcraft players pay 156 euro a year when there are other freeonline MMO's..

 

Heck even International Ragnarok costed me about 156 euro a year and that was laggy as hell and had cheating and people's accounts getting hacked... and god I hated botters..but I still played it on and off for a few years because I made some great online buddies on there..

Anyway I guess if you made lots of online friends then the enjoyment you probably get will most likely outweight the costs plus I really get a kick out of 1vs100 now I been playing it regularly with other buddies in party chat

 

Goodbye iRO

 

 



reask on 16 August 2009

Still as I said at the beginning it really is little or nothing over a year.