I totally agree with you there! Sure, I'll pay if it means extra perks and whatnot, but multiplayer should be given at the get-go and not by subscription.WOPR said:Just wondering what people think
I personally do NOT want to pay money just to play online
Computer = free online multiplayer
Wii = Free online multiplayer
PS3 = Free online multiplayer
so why should we have to pay for Xbox Gold for multiplayer?
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
Owning both does not immunise you from bias.lostzombies.com said:
Remember to read the post you are quoting, remember this:
lostzombies.com said:Sorry but I have both a PS3 and 360.
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: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?
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.SomethingAmazing said:Bias is a powerful thing.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 never noticed a latency difference.
Or an overall quality difference, for that matter.SomethingAmazing said:Bias is a powerful thing.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 never noticed a latency difference.
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.Larsirius said: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.Larsirius said: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.
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.VelvetHorror said:The reason why we pay for multiplayer on xbox is better service. From what I've heard, xbox live is much better than PSN.
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.Krantos said:This.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.
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.