The only problem I see is that paying to be connected with your friends through a dedicated server seems right to me. But the fact that you absolutely need to be connected to this to play online multiplayer doesnt make sense. A company that do that has no righteousness and wanna milk some money easily since it doesnt required investment to link console together though the internet. When you purchase a game, you purchase the full game, the cost to develop the online/offline multiplayer is include in the selling price of the game. Unless the company wanna keep investing in the game, add quest, have moderators etc charging a fee to play online is only to milk money and profit from the customers that have your system and wanna play online with their friends. Charging for something that cost nothing should not be encourage.

If you understand my opinion correctly im not agaisnt charging to be part of a network that will let users exchange things, downloads video, demo etc. But it should be 2 different things, you should be able to play your game online even if you dont pay for XBL. But im pretty sure that Micro$oft as a company doesnt care for either the person or gaming in general.

@ironman

First off, you're wrong. Netflix is not $5/month for rentals and then an extra premium if you want instant view. The cheapest plan is $8.99/month and that is 1 DVD out at a time + instant view. Bluray is a premium now and costs around $4 more per month on top of your initial subscription. BD originally had no extra cost.

I have had Netfix since it started, I know better. So yes I am right when I say that MS charges you extra. Netflix box costs nothing extra, PS3 streaming costs nothing extra, BD player with Netflix streaming costs nothing extra, PC costs nothing extra, 360 costs you extra.

Look up facts before trying to argue where I failed.

As for the rest of your argument, you can do whatever you want, but don't keep asking me questions just so that when I give my take you can start throwing the word "fail" around. I'm just giving my personal take on it. I actually own both consoles, I actually know that the services are pretty much equal in terms of just connecting and playing so now I ask you this:

Why would I choose to pay $38.99/year to play online when I see that I have multiple other options that give me the exact same thing, only for free?

Explain to me now, since you seem to have the ultimate answers, what makes my opinion about this so wrong? What justifies me paying that price when in my personal experience I see nothing to warrant LIVE costing money when it offers me nothing that the others do not?

Go ahead.

If you want to pay, go ahead, you're entitled to. Just don't tell me to "suck it up".

I thought this was a thread for giving my opinion on how much I would pay and/or wouldn't pay. Not to give my opinion and then have the OP tell anyone who's opinion differed from his that they are wrong.

I have my opinion, you have yours. Try to respect mine.

Alright, let me admit that I was in fact wrong. Netflix does in fact offer a 1 DVD per month plan for just $4.99/month, ironman was right and I was wrong on that. However, that plan does in fact still grant you instant view, but like the old original Netflix plans it only gives you a limited amount of viewing time.

So while he was right about the $5/month plan, he was wrong about instant view being a seperate package. Unlimited instant view requires a different package, so we are both partially correct.

Just wanted to admit I was wrong and clear that up.

Didn't realize they still had that, it was hiding at the bottom of the plan menu, needing you to scroll below the highest priced plan to find it.


My apologies ironman.

I would've bought a gaming pc instead. So the answer is not much. 10$ a year at most

I would be willing to pay for it as long all (well, realistically most) of the games were using dedicated servers. I don't see why I should pay to use my own console (which I've paid for), game (which I've paid for) and internet connection (which I've paid for), to play with my friends. If, however, there is a dedicated server, that would be improving the experience. That is something I would be willing to pay for, as I did not pay for the dedicated server.
Also, the argument regarding "not paying for Live/PSN because I've paid for internet" is one I find to be very valid. The reason people are willing to pay for Netflix etc, isn't because they are hypocrites, but because they will be getting movies etc that they do not already own. Buying a full-price retail game (MW2 for example) and then paying to play it online is more akin to buying a movie (Lord of the Rings maybe) and having to pay the studios to have access to the last 5 minutes of the movie. It is fundamentally wrong. If, however, I was being offered something extra to subscribe to these studios (extra "making of" videos or something along those lines), I wouldn't consider the studios to be ripping me off. As is though, I wouldn't pay for p2p online gaming.

@ Euphoria, I am not saying you are wrong in not wating to play to pay, I am just pointing out how shallow that argument about paying for internet so everything that uses the internet should be free. Netflix was just one example. what about other movie streaming sites that offer an online service that you have to pay for...are they ripping you off because you have to pay them to use your internet? What about porn sites? You do realize there are free alternatives to those as well, and yet, I never hear anybody bitching about paying for any of that.

@Greyian, there are free altrenatives like XBC so your argument is moot.

Sorry but online multiplayer doesnt take a special network, it only takes internet. So once your paying for internet you should in fact be good to play online multiplayer (im not talking about playstation store or xbl store). Euphoria has a good logic behind is argument since he was specifically talking of online multiplayer. There is no excuse for a company to act like that, if they wanna charge for online multiplayer they should host the game on their server, if not then leave the online multiplayer separate from xbl or psn.

Exactly. I would still play offline games on my PS3 of course, but online games I would just play on computer free of charge.

I don't play online as much as I used to, as I just don't have the time anymore, so I wouldn't be willing to pay anything for it. This was one of the reasons I chose a PS3 over a 360, as I liked having the option to do so without investing any more money.

I have to admit that playing LBP online has been a blast, so I'm glad I could do it for free.

I would be willing to pay something for the service as long as I got something in return for it (other than the ability to play online with friends). For example, if I was able to get access to every beta with my subscription, I may be willing to pay $25/year.

The other model that I think could work would be if you make a minimum of a $5 purchase on the PSN store each month, you would get free online for a month. Maybe a $10 purchase would get you two months of access?

The final model that I may put up with is if each game launched from a standard lobby (Home?). That lobby could display advertisements, hopefully in a not-too-intrusive manner, so that the service would be free for consumers.

On top of that, I think each game that you buy that has an online component would have to come with a minimum of a month of free access. If you consider that you have already paid for the game, why should you have to pay again just to be able to play online?

Personally I hope they keep it free.

Ah, so when you log into your Xbox, it just magically finds people to play with online? No, EVERY P2P service needs servers to match people together XBC a FREE service that allows you to LAN "fools" you xbox into thinking it's LANed with other people uses a server, you are paying for those servers in the case of XBL, that and extra features. by you logic, since I am paying for internet, I should be good for watching streamed video and porn from pay sites, free online. god, at least have consistancy. I have no problem with you not wanting to pay to play, I do have a problem with your argument because it's flawed, and so was Euphoria's.