Poll: Should Xbox Silver have Multiplayer?

[Mcface]

NO, that's what Gold is for.

In life you get what you pay for.

Paying for an online service = tech support, regular updates, improving service, server upkeep etc


Imagine if WOW was free to play, no updates, no fixes of bugs, no online support, no large servers, no dedicated servers (if there was they would be small and laggy/unstable) etc etc..


Sorry but I have both a PS3 and 360. XBox live is far, far better that PS online. There is simply no comparison in terms of quality of service.

It's why in the real world you don't hear people complaining about their rolls royce/bentley but talk to someone with a trebant/skoda and they can give you a list of faults.

Bias is a powerful thing.

I never noticed a latency difference.

I have. Downloads are much faster, updates are almost instant, plus the XBL community is probably more than twice the size with any given game. I don't mind spending the extra few bucks a month to ensure my stuff works the way I want it to. Never had a problem with XBL on the technical side. However on my ps3, it happens. Not enough to be "often" but it does indeed happen more. A lot more.

 

[crono738]

NO, that's what Gold is for.

In life you get what you pay for.

Paying for an online service = tech support, regular updates, improving service, server upkeep etc


Imagine if WOW was free to play, no updates, no fixes of bugs, no online support, no large servers, no dedicated servers (if there was they would be small and laggy/unstable) etc etc..


Sorry but I have both a PS3 and 360. XBox live is far, far better that PS online. There is simply no comparison in terms of quality of service.

It's why in the real world you don't hear people complaining about their rolls royce/bentley but talk to someone with a trebant/skoda and they can give you a list of faults.

Bias is a powerful thing.

I never noticed a latency difference.

Or an overall quality difference, for that matter.

 

[Requx]

From all the pirate forums "we like free stuff".

 

[luckycharms8282]

I think it should. Microsoft would never do it because they would lose so much money. Multiplayer is the only reason I have xbox live in the first place

 

[Larsirius]

A lot of people use the argument that "Xbox live is user hosted" most of the multiplayer games, yes, but not the sercive itself, with all of its content, updates, etc etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't silver get almost exactly what Gold gets, just not multiplayer and filesharing in games like Halo? The Gold members pay for silver members services, so I say charge the Silver members too, and perhaps the Gold members less, but either way is fine with me.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

A lot of people use the argument that "Xbox live is user hosted" most of the multiplayer games, yes, but not the sercive itself, with all of its content, updates, etc etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't silver get almost exactly what Gold gets, just not multiplayer and filesharing in games like Halo? The Gold members pay for silver members services, so I say charge the Silver members too, and perhaps the Gold members less, but either way is fine with me.

Em stuff like downloads could easily been down on a torrent like p2p basis as well whether they do that or not is up to them. I think the main point is that every other online service does all this and you should get updates/patches for free. You should also game for free for the type of gaming you do on XBL on a purely multiplayer perspective there is 0 need for the fees. I mean it is not like the PC get free updates and free mods that run off servers obviously these are add payed for and community payed for but what they do is not worth paying for subs wise.

 

[VelvetHorror]

The reason why we pay for multiplayer on xbox is better service. From what I've heard, xbox live is much better than PSN.

 

[TelHybrid]

Hell yes.

Until they actually start using dedicated servers for the multiplayer gameplay, there's no way whatsoever they can justify charging for Gold. Fact.

 

[Elivercury]

A lot of people use the argument that "Xbox live is user hosted" most of the multiplayer games, yes, but not the sercive itself, with all of its content, updates, etc etc. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't silver get almost exactly what Gold gets, just not multiplayer and filesharing in games like Halo? The Gold members pay for silver members services, so I say charge the Silver members too, and perhaps the Gold members less, but either way is fine with me.

Well aside from the fact that they'd need to create a new type of account (bronze?) for the people who refuse to pay for either, which would then result in people only having gold or bronze. That idea doesn't even make business sense, given the majority of the "free" services available to silver members are services for buying stuff from Microsoft. The idea of charging for silver is the same as Walmart charging an entrance fee to buy your groceries.

 

[Delusibeta]

The reason why we pay for multiplayer on xbox is better service. From what I've heard, xbox live is much better than PSN.

From what I've heard, you've heard wrong. There's certainly no way in hell I'm paying £40/year for Xbox Live in my experience, certainly.

 

[C95J]

NO, that's what Gold is for.

In life you get what you pay for.

Paying for an online service = tech support, regular updates, improving service, server upkeep etc


Imagine if WOW was free to play, no updates, no fixes of bugs, no online support, no large servers, no dedicated servers (if there was they would be small and laggy/unstable) etc etc..


Sorry but I have both a PS3 and 360. XBox live is far, far better that PS online. There is simply no comparison in terms of quality of service.

It's why in the real world you don't hear people complaining about their rolls royce/bentley but talk to someone with a trebant/skoda and they can give you a list of faults.

This.

There really would be no point to Gold if Silver could play MP. I've had the service for 4+ years now, and I think it's worth it. Also, it's only, what, $70 a year now? That's less than $6 a month.

Yes we pay for internet, but XBL isn't a service of your ISP. You still have to pay to use that service, same as other services you get over the internet.

And the reason that XBL is paid and not PSN and the Wii thing is, as lostzombies said, quality of service. XBL, despite being mostly occupied by howler monkeys, is considerably more functional and high quality than the others.

If there's one thing that is developing that annoys me, it's the growing belief that everything should be free. People work to produce this stuff. Sure some stuff is intended to be free, but most services and products are supposed to be purchased. That's how economics works.

I'm gonna go ahead and jump in the same boat as these guys, xbox has a lot more to offer than PS3 does, and I have both of them.

 

[lostzombies.com]

Snip

Laggy, lack of competent tech suport, games not supported online as well and this

The only difference is that XBL has cross game voice chat and PSn has cross game text chat.

seriously I spend most of my time talking to 7 other on different games, why would I want to text 7 people? what year do you live in 1998?

£2 a month to be in full voice/video contact with all my friends is a huge selling point

 

[Hisshiss]

It seems like this argument is less about whether silver should have multiplayer, and more about if microsoft should be charging for anything at all, since there isnt much use to gold if you could do multiplayer anyways.

And as far as that argument goes..well of course an xbox gamer will be happy not spending that extra 10 bucks a month, but telling a company to stop charging money for their wares just isnt going to work, if you cant afford it or just arent willing to pay, your gonna have to just stop using xbox multiplayer, and since the 360 seems to be doing fine, that suggests that enough people are willing to pay for it.

Now on the other end of my feelings towards this, I don't think its horrible that we have to pay for gold, but I really dont believe Im being given what I payed for since, as you said, most online is totally free. Microsoft claims that the cost stems from all the added features, netflix, zune, facebook, all that crap. So the issue I have with the 360 is this, what does that 10 dollars really pay for when dealing with people who have say..a friggin computer they can do all that other stuff on? Multiplayer server strength is fucked, all the communication and party systems are somewhat equally fucked , It would just be nice if they spent less of their time adding worthless ghetto versions of perfectly functional computer features, and spent more time adding GAME related things to my GAMING console.

 

[Fusioncode9]

60$ a year isn't that bad, but now that 1 vs 100 has been cancelled I don' see what perks we get.

 

[Lord Honk]

wasn't there this huge fit about the halo servers being shut down after dunno how many years? Yeah, gold membership, that's money well spent. Excuse me while I go enjoy me a game of Starcraft 1, where MP still runs after 12 years.

Seriously, the pricetag on the games is what keeps me from getting a console, I get the same (if not better) MP experience with a PC. Come on, even the "elaborate" and pushed-up battle.net 2.0 doesn't charge me extra. Not to mention that Games for Windows Live is and will remain free (for the time being), with the same perks as the xbox system. I can even chat with my xbox pals for christ's sake.

 

[marcooos]

See the thing is you can all argue for a freebie like good little communists but as has been mentioned so many times it's £2 a month and even if it was more i wouldn't particularly mind i know there are more free alternatives but I will continue to pay because i enjoy the service, it's £2 a month and i know it none of u ppl arguing for a handout will be on there

 

[Delusibeta]

See the thing is you can all argue for a freebie like good little communists but as has been mentioned so many times it's £2 a month and even if it was more i wouldn't particularly mind i know there are more free alternatives but I will continue to pay because i enjoy the service, it's £2 a month and i know it none of u ppl arguing for a handout will be on there

Largely because it's not worth £40/year.

 

[Tdc2182]

I personally think everything in life should be free, so I would say yes if this was a perfect world.

But in reality, the money that Microsoft makes off of Gold subscriptions and all the fancy little pieces really does go into what makes it the best easy to use and visually appealing console home system in the market today, its hard for me to truthfully say that.

Should it be a price of 60 dollars to play for a year?

Hell no

 

[chronobreak]

Nobody is making you pay for it. If you want to play online, then pay, but if you don't, then you can always play games like Fallout New Vegas or Bioshock or one of the many, many other single player games that are available.

Well, of course I have a choice. If I had a choice between free online multiplayer or paying $8-10 dollars a month for it, I would rather have it for free.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Laggy, lack of competent tech suport, games not supported online(WTF?) as well and this

WTF? Games lag on XBL just as they do on PSN. I play MW2 at my friends house a lot and it lags just as much as it does on my ps3. I never heard of XBL magically making every XBL gamer have excellent connection. Not all games have servers (amazing eh?) and MS doesn't host games on servers its up to the game devs. This is a strawman argument. My s3 games don't lag on games that have dedicated servers (like Killzone 2) and games that don't (like MW2) do lag. IDK what games aren't supported online and one of people's main complaints about PSN is the frequent updates. IDK where you got the idea that there is a lack of support.

seriously I spend most of my time talking to 7 other on different games, why would I want to text 7 people? what year do you live in 1998? £2 a month to be in full voice/video(PS3 has video chat) contact with all my friends is a huge selling point.

You make it seem as if text chat is never useful over voice chat. If I'm playing a different game online than my buddies their discussion about what just happened to them would be confusing to me b/c I wasn't there. If I ask for them to explain it to me I'd have to listen to them while trying to focus on the game I'm trying to win(b/c I'm not a casual type gamer, I play to win). I'd just end up not hearing most of what their saying and have to ask for the joke or whatever again. OR, in a text chat I can simply press the HOME button, be taken to the chat I'm in and read the comments left by my friends or the others in the chat party.

I honestly don't see a difference between the two services. You pay to communicate with your friends and play online I pay nothing to communicate with my friends and play online.