Poll: Should Xbox Silver have Multiplayer?
- Thread starter WOPR
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I reckon Silver should have multiplayer, partly because us on PS3 get free multiplayer and PC gets free multiplayer as well, so why should you guys have to pay, and partly so my friend would shut the fuck up about paying for multiplayer on his 360.
All I can say after playing on my PC with my laggy(fps wise) rig. I still find XBL unplayable the mute function is a ***** to turn on in a lot of games. And ping/lantancy wise its been shocking plus you can't even see a number for the latacy. I think the big issue is the as most/all XBL games are self hosted on other peoples connections the speed and large bandwidth means little.
For what you get it should be cheaper if not free IMHO.
For what you get it should be cheaper if not free IMHO.
If you think Silver should have multiplayer, go play the PS3. The money you pay for Gold is for SERVER MAINTANENCE, which keeps them running smoothly, gets you into matches fast, and keeps connections across the world stable for the people in games. I gladly pay for my online gaming, because I have experienced the PS3s free online multiplayer, and it is terrible.
That's not even an applicable reason as to why it isn't good. They've said to us, over a week in advance "Hey Live update on Monday! It will probably be down for a bit!"Xyliss said:
I agree completely with previous quote.
So what you're asking is, should all XBL services be free? I don't mind paying, it makes it slightly more exclusive. Emphasis on the slightly, before you start coming at me with horror stories of screaming eleven year olds.
So.... anyone realize that your arguing over 16cents a day? Granted this money does add up. However it does go to supporting itself and putting out new content. Like espn, last fm, and all the other neat stuff.
Also I wouldn't even say the wii really has online when you try to compare it. Also the general feel is that xblive is significantly better designed, formatted, and run than any of the other online services.
Also I wouldn't even say the wii really has online when you try to compare it. Also the general feel is that xblive is significantly better designed, formatted, and run than any of the other online services.
... Perhaps this is why you don't buy xBoxes? You know they charge you for multiplayer, so why buy it?
I agree that they should either make gold free or add some shiny new reason to get gold and let silvers play multiplayer for free. I have been an XBL gold member for about 5 years or so now, and I've never had a problem paying for it until recently.
Early on MS was miles ahead on the online front and a simple comparison of services showed that is was far ahead of the non-existant/poor services offered by Nintendo and Sony at various times. This increase in service made it worth paying for.
However, now PS3 and Nintendo (to an extent..) have got their own running online services which boast similar capabilities to XBL - Very similar infact. I've honestly only tried Little Big Planet on the PS3 online, so I don't consider it a fair test of the service's capability, however I know several people who prefer their PSN service to that of XBL, even while paying for gold.
Since the gap between services has been bridged and one service is free while the other costs money, I don't see how MS can reasonably charge for such a service, let alone hike the price. I understand the arguments of customer services/server fees etc. However given they use the host and are nothing more than a glorified matchmaking service, I don't imagine those costs can be THAT high. Sony certainly manages to swallow them with good grace.
I do recognise that there are a few other reasons to join gold, the only one standing out in my mind currently being the discounts of the week. I imagine if you buy a lot of video games, those weekly discounts would probably save you more than you paid for gold, however for someone like myself who rarely buys games, I feel the price of the service isn't reflective of what I'm receiving.
Early on MS was miles ahead on the online front and a simple comparison of services showed that is was far ahead of the non-existant/poor services offered by Nintendo and Sony at various times. This increase in service made it worth paying for.
However, now PS3 and Nintendo (to an extent..) have got their own running online services which boast similar capabilities to XBL - Very similar infact. I've honestly only tried Little Big Planet on the PS3 online, so I don't consider it a fair test of the service's capability, however I know several people who prefer their PSN service to that of XBL, even while paying for gold.
Since the gap between services has been bridged and one service is free while the other costs money, I don't see how MS can reasonably charge for such a service, let alone hike the price. I understand the arguments of customer services/server fees etc. However given they use the host and are nothing more than a glorified matchmaking service, I don't imagine those costs can be THAT high. Sony certainly manages to swallow them with good grace.
I do recognise that there are a few other reasons to join gold, the only one standing out in my mind currently being the discounts of the week. I imagine if you buy a lot of video games, those weekly discounts would probably save you more than you paid for gold, however for someone like myself who rarely buys games, I feel the price of the service isn't reflective of what I'm receiving.
I remember back in the day when Xbox Live Silver had free multiplayer for arcade games. I thought this was great (even though I purchased gold).
Paying to use your own internet connection which you already pay a separate company for is stupid. I would bet money that Microsoft just uses the servers they use for MSN messenger for the chat functions of the Xbox. Especially since it is trivial to link the accounts together. (From the user perspective.) If I was going to pay money I would expect to have dedicated servers for all games period.
I can answer that for you. Recently, my Xbot(I mean that in the nicest way) roommate moved out and was promptly replaced to cover rent. He took with him his Xbox and gold account, obviously. I did get fairly regular use of his Xbox and played over live fairly often.That-Ginger-Kid said:
Now that he is gone, and that there are 360 exclusive games coming out that I want, I am considering buying a new 360. However, I didn't really feel like lIVE was anything special (this is a guy who switches from PSN, LIVE, to PC multiplayer on a regular basis) and most of the games I'm interested in are single player, so I won't be buying live with it. Instead, I'll be using that $60 to buy the new game that's caught my eye(fable 3).
The thing is, I personally think what the PC/PSN have going is the best option. I'm already paying for the internet, the system, and the game. So, using one of the games built in features is only natural. However, if I want some additional cool stuff that is focused at more hardcore gamers, I can fork out the money. Or maybe even if I just want to donate for the service being so good, that option is there.
Making a fee for online multiplayer, especially when the servers are user-based, just seems unnecessary to me. I have plenty of other outlets for online play, I don't need the 360 to be another one that holds an additional yearly cost.
OT: I think they could make multiplayer free (and should if the only focus was being fair to the consumer). I don't think they would though. They've gotten enough people to buy into the idea that it is something they should have to pay for, and therefore can get them to pay. As a company, that is a perfect situation. They don't know I'm feeding them the exact thing others get for free, they're willing to pay for it, and even when they notice others getting it for free, they just assume what the others are getting is worse and stick with me. Of course, by that time, they're so invested in me monitarally that they think it a waste to just leave. It's a perfect trap.