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

Forums - Microsoft - Xbox Live: Overpriced

Adjudicator on 15 September 2009

So basically what I'm getting here is it's okay if I want to play online with my friends for free, but if I want to play online and talk to them and invite them to games and easily find them in any game and things of the sort I have to pay.
That makes perfect sense but it isn't like that on X360.



 

Around the Network
d21lewis on 15 September 2009

"I'm Batman" -Batman



KoRnster on 15 September 2009

who cares if the x360 gamers want to pay for online playing? i don't give a f*ck about that & if they want to get robbed by M$ let them. this whole thread is completly useless because we never will have the same opinion.



JaggedSac on 15 September 2009
KoRnster said:
who cares if the x360 gamers want to pay for online playing? i don't give a f*ck about that & if they want to get robbed by M$ let them.

Here here.



hardyhar on 15 September 2009
Adjudicator said:
So basically what I'm getting here is it's okay if I want to play online with my friends for free, but if I want to play online and talk to them and invite them to games and easily find them in any game and things of the sort I have to pay.
That makes perfect sense but it isn't like that on X360.

It is like that on the 360 though. Have you ever used one? Cross-game chat means I can talk to friends no matter what they're doing, even multiple friends at the same time who are all playing different games if I want to. I can invite anyone to any game and I can join a person in a game if they're in a joinable position. I can see what games my friends are playing and what exactly they're doing in that game, and it will say on their gamercard if they're joinable. It does make me wonder if the people criticising Live have actually used it, or if they're assuming it's just a version of PSN that costs money. It's not, otherwise I wouldn't pay.



Around the Network
d21lewis on 15 September 2009

See you guys when we have this exact same debate, next week!!

I think I'll take a pro-Wii position, next time. Should be fun!



KoRnster on 15 September 2009

this thread remembers me a nice japanese movie called "Duel Project 1 - 2LDK" ;)



Adjudicator on 15 September 2009
hardyhar said:
Adjudicator said:
So basically what I'm getting here is it's okay if I want to play online with my friends for free, but if I want to play online and talk to them and invite them to games and easily find them in any game and things of the sort I have to pay.
That makes perfect sense but it isn't like that on X360.

It is like that on the 360 though. Have you ever used one? Cross-game chat means I can talk to friends no matter what they're doing, even multiple friends at the same time who are all playing different games if I want to. I can invite anyone to any game and I can join a person in a game if they're in a joinable position. I can see what games my friends are playing and what exactly they're doing in that game, and it will say on their gamercard if they're joinable. It does make me wonder if the people criticising Live have actually used it, or if they're assuming it's just a version of PSN that costs money. It's not, otherwise I wouldn't pay.

The point I was making is that it's not like that on X360 because I don't have the choice to pay for the extras. It is not possible to just play a game for free online. If it was the way I described THAT would make perfect sense



 

Feylic on 15 September 2009
ironman said:
Feylic said:
ironman said:
The restaurant analogy is complete fail. Lets try this one. The Anitvirus program market.
Now, PSN is like the free version of PC tools Spyware doctor. It works pretty good, but it doesn't have all the bells and whistles. XBL is like the paid version of Spyware doctor. It has realtime protection and a deeper scan setting. For some people, the free version is all they need, others want more, so they pay for the enhanced version.

This analogy works better if you say that Live and PSN have the same antivirus capabilities, but you pay for live because it came in a shiny box with a bell.... and whistle.


You are absolutely correct. I went about my analogy wrong. Let me put it this way. PSN is like Free antivirus software programs, they work fine, but do not catch everything, and the realtime protection is limited. XBL is like the Antivirus programs you pay for, they are rock solid, have full realtime protection, and do full sweeps. Now, both work, one just works better and is worth the money you put into it. PSN and XBL do NOT have the same capabilities. They both do what they are supposed to. One just does a better job, and it should because people have to pay for it.

Well you got one thing right, one should do a better job because you have to pay for it, unfortunately it doesn't.



hardyhar on 15 September 2009

You don't have a choice if you want to play online with Live (free weekends and playing as a guest aside), but then I don't have the choice of paying a fee and getting extras on PSN that make it as good as Live. I'd love to have that option, cos I might actually start using my PS3 online for games other than Fat Princess (which isn't exactly a shining example of PSN's quality I might add).

If free online was that important, millions of people wouldn't be paying for Live Gold and there'd be a lot more PS3 owners and far fewer 360 owners out there. I don't care if online is free if I can get a more fully featured system that I'll use throughout the life of the console, making the whole experience better, for 50-60 pence a week (i.e. fuck all). I spend more than 12 months of Live costs on a night out down the pub. If it bothers you so much, sell your 360........oh wait....you'll need to actually buy one first.