I really like live. It's updated frequently almost never has problems and overall works well
also: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/4/25/
also: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/4/25/
Halo 3 brought down live for a day but thats all that I know of. Servers were up next day.iTz c00kiE said:The only times i can ever remember live being down is during maintenance during major updates.Phoenixmgs said:I'm willing to bet that Live has actually had more downtime before this incident than PSN. It's not like Live can't be hacked and brought down.Dryaxx said:Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.
That is all.
/thread
Microsoft has no need to even block access to 3rd party servers except to withhold it from you. I understand the costs of a product is a combination of a lot of things from resources to make it, people to run the store, advertising, etc. all the way to the actual profit and also supply and demand. If you have a lot more demand than supply, you can really increase that profit portion. I know Microsoft stipulates game publishers/devs have to use Live for online since if they didn't, Activision or EA could offer free online gaming for their games and bypass Live. I agree that Microsoft wants full control and is controlling what you can access on the 360, which is why there's no web browser. Microsoft is then being a jerk by charging you for stuff it's just "controlling" that it doesn't need to control. It's like a kid buying a bad of candy with his/her own money, then a parent taking the bad of candy (controlling access) and charging the kid a nickle for every piece he/she takes out of the bag. I can see a parent not wanting the kid to eat that bag of candy all in one day but charging the kid money for something he/she already paid for is ridiculous. That's what Microsoft is doing and it's just a huge jerk-ass move on Microsoft's part and nothing else.Jaime_Wolf said:It's probably pointless to keep trying to explain the problem, but I suppose I'll give it one more go.
I'm not in any way disagreeing that it doesn't cost Microsoft anything to provide access to third-party servers (realistically, it does cost them at least something, but for the sake of argument let's ignore that). What I'm trying to get across to you is that the cost of a product is virtually never just a function of the cost of the resources required to provide it. The only thing that matters is that Microsoft has put itself into a position where it controls something you want. That is far and away the largest determiner of pricing and resource costs have little to nothing to do with it.
And developers don't just run their games through Xbox Live because it's convenient, they do it because Microsoft's license stipulates that they have to, which in turn allows Microsoft to charge for the service. Again, this has nothing to do with hosting resources and everything to do with licensing agreements.
And if maybe you understand what I'm saying but think that things shouldn't be that way:
(1) How do you propose we price things, as a function of resource cost alone? This would mean wholesale rejection of capitalism and abandonment of any notion that businesses should attempt to earn a profit.
(2) You should probably refuse to buy every product and service currently offered by any even moderately large business (honestly, most small business probably qualify too). You're objecting to Microsoft externalising costs and leveraging their properties via licensing agreements, which is just normal business practice.
This is like the...7th? time you're trying to argue someone giving you a valid answer. Your opening linePhoenixmgs said:What about Steam?Psycho Cat Industries said:Just look at the PlayStation Network and Live.That money goes places.
More than likely Microsoft is paying Netflix for access to it's servers from their xbox.Phoenixmgs said:This is not at all a Live sucks, PSN is better thread
It costs somewhere between $20-$30 per person to play laser tag with my friends for an hourKaze103 said:No, we're paying for all the things you listed, what you mean is we're paying $60 for the upkeep of a single service. Slight difference.Phoenixmgs said:The only service Microsoft is providing you for Gold membership is cross-game chat so you are basically paying $60 a year for cross-game chat and that is it.
I get what you're saying, we shouldn't have to pay for all that stuff, but we do have to, and that's really all there is to it.
Overall, I pay for it because I have to, and I'm not that bothered by it. I can afford thirty something quid a year.
It deffinitly can be hacked and taken down......but they have a constant flow of income to support securityPhoenixmgs said:I'm willing to bet that Live has actually had more downtime before this incident than PSN. It's not like Live can't be hacked and brought down.Dryaxx said:Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.
That is all.
/thread
Netflix pays Microsoft money, not the other way around. Microsoft holds the cards to allow a service access to the 360 user base of millions of people. Netflix will gladly give Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo money for access to their millions of users to increase the amount of Netflix users. More Netflix users = more $$$ for Netflix.jakefongloo said:More than likely Microsoft is paying Netflix for access to it's servers from their xbox.
Edit: I read that a bit wrong.jakefongloo said:Xbox is cheaper than PS3 and a good PC
The laser tag company bought the guns, they bought the other equipment, they probably have to rent the forest/park area from the city, and they have employees working at the site. Plus there's maintenance of the guns and equipment.jakefongloo said:It costs somewhere between $20-$30 per person to play laser tag with my friends for an hour
They didn't build the guns
They didn't build the battle field (woods)
They bought everything to which they are displacing the charge onto us.
I don't think microsoft went to last fm and asked, "can we use your servers for free?"
costs $10 a month to play cod with my friends however long we want.
it probably has just not being used they are probably using facebook tactics they hack us we hire themBest of the 3 said:Well, we pay to not have our information stolen >.>
<..>
no they were just smart enough to have a second server so when it happens they just pull it up normaly that is why it is realy slow sometimes when it isnt your network's probleGudrests said:It deffinitly can be hacked and taken down......but they have a constant flow of income to support securityPhoenixmgs said:I'm willing to bet that Live has actually had more downtime before this incident than PSN. It's not like Live can't be hacked and brought down.Dryaxx said:Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.
That is all.
/thread
Ha! This too.Best of the 3 said:Well, we pay to not have our information stolen >.>
<..>
The PSN has sales all week normally, the week before all this it was Assassins Creed for $15AUD.sethzard said:A better connection than on the ps3 and cross game chat, as well as the deal of the week and certain demos.
Would you pay the strippers money if they didn't strip?hydrahh said:I spend more money on the average week at the strippers than I do every year for Xbox live.
If 60 bucks is life and death, I pity you.
jakefongloo said:Xbox is cheaper than PS3 and a good PC
you'd be instantly wrong...since Xbox live has actually never been down like Psn has.Phoenixmgs said:I'm willing to bet that Live has actually had more downtime before this incident than PSN. It's not like Live can't be hacked and brought down.Dryaxx said:Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.
That is all.
/thread
except xbox live has never not once been hacked.Mimsofthedawg said:You right. Xbox live has only been hacked twice. And the PSN has been hacked SOOOOOOOOOO many more times than that..... >.>Saviordd1 said:Better service, better servers, better system, better games, better controls, earlier downloads....
oh yeah
AND OUR PRIVACY REMAINS OUR OWN