Alright, I was doing some math and $50 a year is only $4.17 a month. So, if you look at it that way then it's really not that much. That's less than buying one combo meal a month at McDonald's, for the most part. Of course free is still cheaper than $4.17 a month.  Lol

4.17 a month or whatever

when you arent playin 360 online for a while, and own the other two systems tooo further cutting down your playtime, its just a lame tax on one systems online.

my gold dies october 1st, and its gonna stay dead tbh, bored of gears, and grabbing cod 6 on ps3

maybe gears 3 will get me back on gold. i'm lettin it die tho, and i would guess im in the top 20 longest live members on this site.

fanboys disagree all you want, its bs and im putting my money where my mouth is after all these years. if more did the same we would not be paying for live.

I think its funny really. The same arguments used to say that Live is overpriced are the same which are used to say that the Wii is overpriced. The argument is that the hardware being offered costs less than what is being charged essentially by a large amount.

We had a big thread on this and the general consensus of the more unbiased individauls was that: "PS3 is Free, Xbox Live is better". Sure it adds up to $240 over 6 years of a consoles life, but games especially will probably add up to over $1000 on a PS3 or Xbox 360 and relatively it isn't that much.

And I am merely saying the author, whoever wrote this article (this topic creator should've been more careful on how to post this article on this forum; like give out a personal introduction, or something.  Why hasn't the topic creator said anything in the first post?), complains about Microsoft making more money than Sony and has done nothing about it.  Yet more and more people are paying for it and seemed to have no problems at all, including myself.

And about reliability: blogs are just not (...and forget I said that.  It was something I learned, don't ask).  Maybe unless you pasted a novel-length, detailed post on your blog, they may count.  But I have seen these arguements before.  This is not something new, I'll say.

Now, when I commented on my 2nd post, I did not blame the thread creator, monlosez, for this article.  I did realize that the thread creator did not make this article.  But he/she didn't say anything and could've be the guilty one.  You have to try to convince more people that's it's not monlosez.

Now don't mind the VG Chartz or the thread creator, I am sure you understood the false logic behind the original article.

I would say this, I like live for what it is, but, if you buy a $60 game that game should not say it includes online multiplayer. it should say online multiplayer sold separately ..

Why not sell Xbox 360 games cheaper when playing online on it is a privilegde.. 

You can't play online right out of the box .. all I want is play online and the rest of the features can go to hell.

If I buy COD:MW2 it will cost me $65 including tax plus another $50 if I want to play online for a full year.
Thats $115 on that game alone to play to the fullest.

In my case I share my Xbox with two diff accounts thats $100 invested in one console every year, I can add a 3rd account but that would be ridicules.

Why not make one payment and tie it to the console for a year at least, So a family of 4 or 5 can have thier own accounts ..

Microsoft wants to go after the casuals, but to be more family oriented they have to do something on how they run Live,

Think about it, I don't think the average hard working dad with 3 kids over 12 years old and 4 including him will make 4 separate live accounts on that console..

Hardly anybody likes to share their own accounts.

If that same dad goes shopping for a system console at Best buy and ask the seller which console is better suited for my kids and myself to each have our own profiles and share the same console, the seller will say, best deal will be a PS3..

Microsoft will soon lose my support to Sony this christmas, the free service that Sony offers is looking good everyday and totally, you can't go wrong for what it is ..

PSN provides a lot of good features and the network community is growing larger everyday ..

I still will buy exclusive Xbox 360 games but only for SP mode, Multiplat games is for my online multiplayer satisfaction on the ps3 ..

^And we have another winner!

Yeah, good example. I won't lie here and tell you I know tons of people who relate to the specific example you presented. But I actually do have a group of friends that ALL AND EVERYTHING they do on their PS3s is play COD4 MW. They should call them the CODStation or something. They never get online for anything else and I doubt it's any different when off either. What options do these kind of user have with Live? As you say, pay $60 for your game, then pay $50 for a year -at least- of online (and I can assure you and you may know, many people kept playing COD4 MW well over a year, some keep going until MW2 debuts). That's what I call a rip-off, better features or not.

I have several people on my friends list who are like this as well. I know them from another forum I visit, and they literally only play Call of Duty games. Sometimes they aren't on for weeks at a time. For people like this, does it make sense to pay just to hop online a few times a month, if at all?

This topic seems to be beaten to death though. I know many people who subscribe to XBL and they love it and some of them swear by it. Obviously for anyone who is a heavy online x360 gamer, they aren't going to worry about $40 a year. I however can do without the ~$150 in live fees over the course of a generation and would prefer to spend that money on games.

@MvP4eVa

good point i hadnt even thought of.

they want the family online, but only one avatar for all of em, or 200 a year.

sooooooo true.

WoW has more content and will give you more playtime than all XBLA games put together. WoW(just like any MMO) will give you far more bang for your buck than the average game. The thing is, Xbox Live doesn't give you anything in return, they only force you to pay stuff that should be free.

shio -

WoW does not have more content than all XBLA games put together. I am not even understanding why XBLA was brought up, either?