akuseru said: TBH, people who pay for LIVE are stupid, and they are actually contributing to paid online gaming being acceptable. That's right, if paid online gaming becomes a standard in the future, you all know where to turn, MS and their brainless Gold subscribers... What MS actually does is "stealing" half of every game you buy for your 360. You pay EA for their game, but you will have to pay MS as well to play half of it. You have to pay MS for playing games which have absolutely nothing to do with them (besides being on the 360, which MS should be thankful for, not charge extra). I can't believe how this practice became accepted. MS is giving you all a golden shower, and apparently you're all sitting there with your mouths wide open and loving the action...
Thank you all for contributing to a more expensive and customer-exploitive gaming environment. You're doing a great job... |
Before I respond to this post, let me just say that even though I don't see a problem with Live being a charged service (Xbox did basically launch online gaming on consoles into popularity afterall), I believe now that Sony has basically caught up, MS shouldn't charge for the service for the next box.
Now to rebut the post:
This has to be one of the more ignorant posts I've read in a while. You're saying we should blame MS and the users who pay for XBL? Shouldn't we be thanking these people because it forced Sony into the online gaming market for the first time in a serious manner? (FFXI on PS2 doesn't count because it was basically a joke). In addition, should we also be blaming 360 and PS3 early adopters for pushing up console prices for even considering spending money on those consoles from the start at such ridiculous prices ($1000AUD for a games console?).
The answer is no. It's thanks to these individuals who bought the PS3 and 360 earlier on and allowed for more production and therefore cost effective SKU's to be produced that we are able to enjoy these consoles at a lower price. In that same sense, you should be thanking MS and the early Gold users for showing Sony and Nintendo that online gaming can be a area to improve in. MS forced Sony into action. PSN wouldn't exist in it's current state if it weren't for MS leading the way and them being funded by those XBL users.
Are they stupid? perhaps. But the point is, your sarcasm isn't wanted if you cannot see the usefulness of their behaviour to us free PSN users. MS is trying to push for value with facebook and netflix, I doubt Sony would have considered Netflix on PSN if they didn't see it working for MS first.
We might as well blame Wii owners as well for us not being able to sit on our behinds to play our games next generation as well. Innovation? pffft who needs it, I'm happy to have one company that controls everything and does nothing, competition is bad for the industry. I love how the difference between the PS1 and PS2 was updated graphics, that's such a massive step forward for the industry (I'm being fairly sarcastic here).
Honestly, this XBL argument is stupid. If people see value in it, they will buy it. So far, I'm fairly certain based on how XBL is doing that people do see value in it. In the same sense, I'm sure people saw the 360 and PS3 at their launch prices as good value when they bought them and you might think so as well, I personally don't, but does that mean that the consoles at launch weren't good value? Nope, because value can be subjective. You might think differently, but don't state it as fact when it's just your opinion (which you're entitled to of course).
EDIT: I should note that like I said at the start, my opinion now is that XBL on the nextbox should be free (and therefore may not be good value now). But I'm replying to the post I quoted by saying that this person is ignorant for not seeing why XBL was a charge worthy service in the beginning (and why, I feel, it was necessary for the industry).