Phoenixmgs said:
This isn't meant to be an anti-Xbox thread at all. I just feel paying someone money for a service when they don't experience any expenses is just plain bullshit. It's like paying Walmart money for a game you bought at Target.
Here is the problem with your statement. You assert that, in some games, you use a p2p system and that in
these games there is little to no operational expense for Microsoft or Sony. Then you lament that on one of these services you have to pay to play.
I'm not going to tell you not to decry such a thing - it is well within your right as a consumer to choose to support one product over another. What I will say is that your argument does nothing to support this claim.
Some games use P2P. Others use dedicated servers. Some games use dedicated servers paid for by a publisher that is neither Microsoft or Sony. But
all of these games rely on platform holder servers for the delivery of certain key bits and pieces. One one platform, this and other costs associated with running the service (it isn't free no matter how little it appears to actually do when examined by a casual observer) this cost is passed to the consumer and is seen to be a higher quality service in many respects. On another, the cost is not passed on to the consumer and is generally seen to be an inferior product.
Reality demonstrates that this online service can be delivered to the player without an associated cost. If what you
really want is for another service to stop charging for what is functionally identical (if marginally superior), or at the very least charge less, come right out and say it. Don't wave a meaningless argument about before you do because all it does is distract from your point.
And, please, if you do make such a mistake, do not follow it up with an utterly irrelevant argument.
All that said, I will point out that I play games regularly on the PC, the 360 and PS3. On the PC, there are plenty of games that I have to pay regular installments to keep playing, but that is all but irrelevant to the argument. Between the PS3 and the 360, I have to say that I prefer the 360 experience. Consistency and coherence of the interface is a plus. On my PS3, it is often an exciting adventure figuring out how to get people I know into a game and even when not in a game all such options are buried deep in some long forgotten menu. I could go on, but my point does not really require it. I am willing to sacrifice the price of a cup of gourmet coffee a month to play games online with friends. The choice of which platform I play a particular game on is primary dictated not by my experience with the interface or the utility of the systems involved but rather by the platform that hosts most of them. Because all but one of my friends is willing to pay this relatively trivial fee (and the other hold out holds all the platforms much like myself) to play, that means I play on 360.
Would I choose to pay less if I could? Certainly. But do I resent having to pay in the first place? Not even slightly. There is a fee that is sufficient to make me resent it but not so great that I refuse to pay, certainly. If XBL cost perhaps five times as much it would equate to a notable enough sum that I'd resent paying each and every time. But, thankfully, it rests comfortably below such a level. Other people will, of course, come to a different judge of the value the service provides and plenty of them will find that even five dollars a month is too high. That is all well and good. But don't try and wave about nonsensical numbers and examples. The reason they charge is because people are willing to pay. The reason PSN plus is doing poorly is simply because few people see a significant increase in value when they do.
Neither side operates a charity and both are trying to make money off the online infrastructure. One of them has been successful. The other is still struggling to find a way.
