Why do people pay for Xbox Live?

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Dude, I can sympathize with your point of view and even some people opposing it but you really need to stop. Not because you have offended me in any way but I honestly feel that it is better for you. You cannot change peoples minds because they do not want to be changed for a number of variables. Just leave it as it is, this is pretty much a relativistic debate thus no one can win. Some points are better than others but this is left mostly up to personal interpretation. You gave them a good run anyways and did a heck of a lot better than I did on such a hot topic.

I posted the thread because of real life people pissing me off about how Live is better because of this PSN hacking. Also, there is a lot of people that just don't understand how online gaming works. Lots of people think playing COD on PSN or Live is them playing on Sony's or Microsoft's servers when it is not. PSN is not less laggy than Live or vice verse. Both services are equal in many ways, I was not even saying one service was better or worse, I was just saying to look at what Microsoft is asking you to pay for with Gold membership and ask yourself, "Does that make sense?" once you know the facts.

 

[fgdfgdgd]

As of this minute, the 250g Xbox, with built in wireless adapter is £175 on amazon.co.uk. The Slim PS3 (160g) costs £225. That list is so outdated most of the models on it are not in production anymore.

What's that? The sound of you being wrong?

In the words of the internet: Pics or it didn't happen, don't worry, I just got them for you, and before you complain about the HDD, they're the closest in size that aren't in a bundle or stripped bare.

 

[CaptQuakers]

I will always pay for what I deem the better service. It's £40 a year. Thats not exactly a HUGE drop in the ocean It's so little I barely even notice it leaving my account. And as far as I know on a silver account you can't play game online. I'm not entirely sure on that though.

The xbox is just overall better for me personally. The PS might have better graphics better overall even but the online is just weak......

O and for those who bring up blu-ray or the net. I have a dvd player and a computer that do those things about 100 times better so I'm going to use those....

 

[Best of the 3]

Well, we pay to not have our information stolen >.>

<..>

So you're implying that Sony being hacked and having the information "stolen" was their fault? They didn't put up security because they under-estimated a bunch of hackers who were mad at Sony for not dropping the case of a guy who was jail-breaking PS3s. How would YOU like it if some guy jail-broke Xbox 360s?

If I remember rightly, the guy Jailbroke his PS3 because Sony did not give all the features it promised it would give. And as you said, they underestimated it so yeah, it is partially their fault.

And if some guy Jailbroke 360's, well I won't lose any sleep over it too be honest. I pay for my things so I don't really care. That, and like GeoH, they'd most likely be discovered and punished. But seeing as 360's give what they say they give, there's no reason like Geoh's to jailbreak one.

Two things. Zing! And nice avatar!

Thanks

And geez, 16 quotes over 1 post XD

 

[ramboondiea]

people pay because microsoft charges, its that simple, there is a supposed increase in quality but as i have never used psn or had to ring sony customer service i cant say, i can say that from my experience microsoft customer service is dire. anyway not everyone does pay for gold, i dont use gold and im quite happy with that

 

[TCPirate]

Well, we pay to not have our information stolen >.>

<..>

old joke is old

But it is still right on the money.

Ignore the fan boy. This is the pro-est argument in the PSN vs. XBL arsenal. Let's face it, the playstation network has been down for ages and there's no sign of them put it up again soon.

 

[TehKnifeh]

Wii was released after the xbox 360, the DS has some of the worst wireless built in *dsi updated that* it wont even support WPA I believe. Psn was down for 24 hours+ when the internal clock glitched happend and has been down for 11, 14, and 24 hours for maitenance before.

Built-in wireless is better than no built-in wireless. And, it really took Microsoft long enough to put in built-in wireless.

PSN was NOT down during the "ps3 apocalypse." It was a BIOS glitch in the FAT PS3s, PSN was up the whole time, you just couldn't access PSN if you had a FAT PS3.

The quote about having a FAT PS3 made me giggle like a little schoolgirl for a brief and worrying moment there.

Really it all comes down to personal preference for me. I have both systems and tbh if I can help it I will always opt to use the 360 for a number of reasons, some of which have nothing to do with being online. I prefer the controller over the PS3, all the games that are cross platformed feel nicer to play on on the 360, again prob down to my preference toy the pad. I prefer the dashboard interface as I find it makes more sense to navigate (although ity did take some getting used to after they changed it a few years back), and the 360 has got the better feeling achievement system which really isnt a huge thing to consider as its on par with people putting their system specs in their forum signatures. Not knocking them mind as they are a huge incentiviser to me to play games, just more for the gratification of beating someones challenge then getting the number of points......

.....now actually to swing my post back on topic, the online features between the 2 to me are very similar, some features being completely a waste of time (im looking sqarely at facebook here) cant see any need for it to be a gold service as it doesnt add much and could quite happily be a silver service. the other features are nice, but in then end I bought a console to play games so the services that are more aimed towards turning it into a media centre arenty for me, but for other gamers that want them.

online play is a massive thing this generation and I do applaude sony for it being free and keeping it that way. I do think they missed a trick as a company would charge u money if they can justify it.

To me, I think the sub isnt a big ask, as £40 isnt going to break the bank if I know its coming rond every year and budget for it, besides buying a console is a consouious choice of "I will have to pump money into it to keep playing more games I buy" and objectively I will pay a games worth a year to a service I prefer to use as thats my choice. Should they charge that much? Well thats a matter of personal opinion, but I dont think its a huge issue. Comparityivly (for all u uk members) it would be comparing sky over freesat, same basic offerings, ones free ones not but they both have different things thaty appeal to different people, exclusive channels and the like. no1 complains about the sub as its always been there and is justified for the service provided.

 

[Saulkar]

Dude, I can sympathize with your point of view and even some people opposing it but you really need to stop. Not because you have offended me in any way but I honestly feel that it is better for you. You cannot change peoples minds because they do not want to be changed for a number of variables. Just leave it as it is, this is pretty much a relativistic debate thus no one can win. Some points are better than others but this is left mostly up to personal interpretation. You gave them a good run anyways and did a heck of a lot better than I did on such a hot topic.

I posted the thread because of real life people pissing me off about how Live is better because of this PSN hacking. Also, there is a lot of people that just don't understand how online gaming works. Lots of people think playing COD on PSN or Live is them playing on Sony's or Microsoft's servers when it is not. PSN is not less laggy than Live or vice verse. Both services are equal in many ways, I was not even saying one service was better or worse, I was just saying to look at what Microsoft is asking you to pay for with Gold membership and ask yourself, "Does that make sense?" once you know the facts.

I have a very large comment for this but since I cannot proof read shit being as tired as I am thus I will get back to you tomorrow and send you a note. G'Night.

 

[Gudrests]

Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.


That is all.

/thread

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.

It deffinitly can be hacked and taken down......but they have a constant flow of income to support security

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 proble

That my friend is called stable income. Sony could not do that because of cash restrictions, XBL could. MONEY MONEY MONEY makes the world go round

 

[Frozenfish]

The payment is a delocalisation of the cost, yes they are providing services that others do for free and you have to be paying to get them, but thats what the money is spent on. The subscriptions is choosing that over PSN, Live is just easier, quicker and therefore more efficient to use, theres a vast array of video content that is given through, yes to silver users too, but thats not the point. If you buy and xbox and get a live sbscription it is because you want this service instead of PSN. IMO PSN has terrible community feature accesibility, who wants to mess about with a bluetooth headset when you can just plug one in? (I dont get live users who use the wireless headset too before you say). Also, I know its been mentioned, but the PSN network going down is hard proof that the service is not as good! Yes silver users have thier date protected too, but that doesn't really mean anything as an arguement, they are protected because gold members do pay, its the freeloader principle, but if some people had their details stolen off of PSN they might think about upgrading to gold and not bothering with PSN after this.

Steam is good, but thats more a console/PC arguement, no one really chooses PC over console or visa-versa solely on the platform used.

 

[blobby218]

Well, we pay to not have our information stolen >.>

<..>

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA nice one mate, if i could high five you i would

 

[blobby218]

Don't feed the trolls! but its because its good online gaming with fast connection and good security

 

[DRSH1989]

Microsoft uses the extra money to actually protect users' data.

Riiiiiiiiight...

 

[googleback]

I'm not enormously into online gaming and i've barely used my gold subscription card this year. it will probably be my last (I have steam you see)

 

[Rusman]

I just use Silver, It's free and I don't have to deal with the usual clientèle on Xbox LIVE.

meaning you dont get to play with anyone outside your room.

Yep, I couldn't care less about multi-player. I have very few games that even have multi-player (the only one I am remotely interested in is Assassin's Creed - Brotherhood.)
If I want to play games with mates then I'll use the PC

 

[TelHybrid]

In response to the OP take a look at a lot of the responses defending live, and there you will see the big overall answer. People pay for Live gold because they're morons who like being ripped off and supporting others being ripped off.

They're almost as stupid as the people who think the Call of Duty DLC packs are worth £12.

 

[dragonslayer32]

Having used both services, I am willing to pay for Live. It is only £40 a year and you get content released on it before PSN, more demos, better features and all round better service. We also have the comfort of knowing if someone hacked live, we would get our money back.

 

[AndrewC]

I pay for it because it's £3 a month, if you buy a 12 month card, and because it's a good service.

 

[AndrewC]

In response to the OP take a look at a lot of the responses defending live, and there you will see the big overall answer. People pay for Live gold because they're morons who like being ripped off and supporting others being ripped off.

They're almost as stupid as the people who think the Call of Duty DLC packs are worth £12.

This post makes me cry at night, because it's stupid.

Regarding the CoD Packs, I think anyone who buys them at full price is a bit of a numpty.

Yes fair enough if you really like the game then go for it and have a blast I'm not saying you're stupid for buying it, but it's because of the absolute rip-off that they charge for these packs just makes me think you could just wait until it's on a deal and use the points for something else.