Poll: Should Xbox Silver have Multiplayer?

RollForInitiative

New member
Mar 10, 2009
1,015
0
0
Of course people are going to want something for nothing. It's a loaded question. Somehow, I think the logistics don't make it financially feasible. Given that I've had significantly less issues with the standard Microsoft LIVE servers when playing online than I've had with the handful of non-LIVE servers, I'm more than happy to support the effort with a little spare change each month. Seriously, I can afford LIVE just by going to Starbucks one less time per month. I'd hardly call that a taxing situation for my wallet.
 

Captain Pirate

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,875
0
0
WOPR said:
I think they should do what the PS3 did and make Gold members get beta's and demos and stuff like that much sooner then the general public

but I don't think we should have to PAY MONEY to PLAY ONLINE
Simply put, this.
 

Emilox The Great

New member
May 26, 2010
313
0
0
WOPR said:
In WoW you're paying for the server cost which is millions a year

so what makes Xbox so special?

one word my good sir : Bill Gates! wait a minute... Bill? as in Bullet Bill? oh no...

OT i think it should be free to play Xbox live. PS3 got it PC got it. and plus who wanna pay for getting called a ****** by a 12 year old anyway? sick freaks...
 

EightGaugeHippo

New member
Apr 6, 2010
2,076
0
0
Not unless they made gold free.
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA fat chance.

But then again, gold isnt even that much. What like £40 a year? If you cant afford that, then you should sell your xbox and get a job.
 

That-Ginger-Kid

New member
Mar 16, 2010
47
0
0
I've just got one question.

why did you buy an xbox if you didn't think about having to pay for the additional features? you knew when you got the console that it wasn't free to play online (or at least, you should have known beforehand). so if you've decided on purchasing it, why can't you make the small step forward to getting gold?
 

Xyliss

New member
Mar 21, 2010
347
0
0
lostzombies.com said:
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.
Now as much as I have to agree with you, xbox live is down right now for me because of an update...which both helps the point (as they are updating it) and opposes it (as the service isnt good (because it isnt working atm)
 

darrinwright

New member
Oct 1, 2008
329
0
0
While I have PS3 and 360, and I find the PSN to be on par with Live for the most part, I think Silver/Free should TOTALLY have multiplayer. It's stupidly ridiculous to not have so, especially since Microsoft's gotta be making up a nice portion of the money that goes into multiplayer through all the friggin' ads I see every time I start up my 360.
 

Eri

The Light of Dawn
Feb 21, 2009
3,626
0
0
lostzombies.com said:
XBox live is far, far better that PS online. There is simply no comparison in terms of quality of service.
Um, duh? Obviously it's better because you pay for it. You don't shell out a cent for PS so it is not fair in any way to compare them. Imagine if you paid for PS, I'm sure it'd easily rival the 360.
 

SilentBobsThoughts

New member
Dec 29, 2009
287
0
0
SomethingAmazing said:
lostzombies.com said:
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.
This ^^^^^^^
 

ActionDan

New member
Jun 29, 2009
1,002
0
0
lostzombies.com said:
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.
I can get all that for Team Fortress 2, and I don't have to pay them any fee's.
 

captaincabbage

New member
Apr 8, 2010
3,149
0
0
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.
 

bad rider

The prodigal son of a goat boy
Dec 23, 2007
2,252
0
0
Ye, I think that silver should have multi player, however I'm not running a business.
 

Dumori

Dumori(masoddaa)
May 28, 2010
91
0
0
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.
 

RUINER ACTUAL

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1,835
0
0
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.
 

RUINER ACTUAL

New member
Oct 29, 2009
1,835
0
0
Xyliss said:
lostzombies.com said:
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.
Now as much as I have to agree with you, xbox live is down right now for me because of an update...which both helps the point (as they are updating it) and opposes it (as the service isnt good (because it isnt working atm)
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!"

I agree completely with previous quote.
 

Jawz 014

New member
Aug 18, 2010
82
0
0
No.... while it would be nice to have a extra 50 bucks to spend on other things than xbox live, if it was free even more little kids and tards than there are now would be messing up the games that i pay to play online for.
 

Geekosaurus

New member
Aug 14, 2010
2,105
0
0
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.
 

pretentiousname01

New member
Sep 30, 2009
476
0
0
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.