Supply and demand mate. It's the same reason people pay the state in order to be considered legally married. Sure you can get it for free, but we know you will pay. And frankly their is no such thing as a free lunch.
Thissethzard said:A better connection than on the ps3 and cross game chat, as well as the deal of the week and certain demos.
Well i read an article that said that sony where adding cross game chat before they bring psn back upAbandon4093 said:Really?
You're going to ask that now????
To answer your question, because people will pay for it.
I do like the way live runs over PSN. It does seem to have fewer connectivity issues, not to mention it seems much more stable as a whole. Not to mention cross game chat... I swear, that's the biggest thing I miss when I'm playing on my PS3. If a mates playing one game and I'm playing another, Sometimes you just want to chat. Kinda silly not to have that really.
I don't particularly think it's worth the money we have to pay for it, but it is good. You certainly get more added features out of PSN+. But I'm not willing to pay for it seeing as I get all I need out of the free service.
As if I have to do this:Phoenixmgs said:"You don't want to" is much different than "You have to"Kaze103 said:And I don't want to use either of these alternatives.Phoenixmgs said:Would you be bothered if you had to pay both the cable company and DSL company for Internet service when you just have cable? That's exactly what Microsoft is pulling. And, you don't have to pay for Live; PSN and Steam are free alternatives.Kaze103 said: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.
Dryaxx said:Look at PSN... Now look at XBL.
That is all.
/thread
http://www.vgsynergy.net/2011/05/07/you-will-be-surprised-and-pleased-with-the-new-psn/Joseph375 said:Source?Macrobstar said:Well i read an article that said that sony where adding cross game chat before they bring psn back upAbandon4093 said:Really?
You're going to ask that now????
To answer your question, because people will pay for it.
I do like the way live runs over PSN. It does seem to have fewer connectivity issues, not to mention it seems much more stable as a whole. Not to mention cross game chat... I swear, that's the biggest thing I miss when I'm playing on my PS3. If a mates playing one game and I'm playing another, Sometimes you just want to chat. Kinda silly not to have that really.
I don't particularly think it's worth the money we have to pay for it, but it is good. You certainly get more added features out of PSN+. But I'm not willing to pay for it seeing as I get all I need out of the free service.
That would be awesome. Parties in Call of Duty with my friend are always fun, not always because of the game, but because of the chat. Bring on the Cross-game-chat, Sony.
The only COD I ever bought is COD4 and I payed $10 for the first map pack and $10 is the most I'd spend on a map pack unless you got more than 4 maps. Activision was just slapping every COD player in the face for that MW2 "stimulus" pack that included ONLY 3 NEW MAPS (2 old maps) and charged $15 for it while naming it a "stimulus" pack making it sound like they were selling it for discount and trying to help "stimulate" the economy or something; they were just stimulating more money out of people's wallets for fewer maps.TelHybrid said: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.
Well it was quoted from a sony representativeAbandon4093 said:I think someone from Sony addressed that as a rumour.Macrobstar said:Well i read an article that said that sony where adding cross game chat before they bring psn back upAbandon4093 said:Really?
You're going to ask that now????
To answer your question, because people will pay for it.
I do like the way live runs over PSN. It does seem to have fewer connectivity issues, not to mention it seems much more stable as a whole. Not to mention cross game chat... I swear, that's the biggest thing I miss when I'm playing on my PS3. If a mates playing one game and I'm playing another, Sometimes you just want to chat. Kinda silly not to have that really.
I don't particularly think it's worth the money we have to pay for it, but it is good. You certainly get more added features out of PSN+. But I'm not willing to pay for it seeing as I get all I need out of the free service.
Microsoft basically sells access to the Xbox. Netflix, last.fm, etc. pay Microsoft for the ability to be on the 360, not the other way around. The more users any service (Netflix, last.fm, etc.) has, the more money the company makes. The more people that watch a TV show, the more the channel can charge for ads. The 360 has a pretty large user base. Speaking of ads, there's more ads on Live (a pay service) than PSN, a free service, how's that make sense. The least Microsoft can do for you for paying for nothing is not put ads on your dashboard.Kaze103 said:I doubt xbox using all these other services is free to them.
Nope, Microsoft has no bandwidth or server costs when you play COD. COD servers are run by Activision and those servers just track stats after the game is over. One of the players in the game is the host (basically the server); every other player uploads what they are doing to the player host, then the player host sends all of the uploaded player data to all the players. The player host plays with a 0 ping (aka host advantage) since he sees where all the players are before anyone else. It's your standard peer-to-peer system. If it wasn't P2P and all games were ran off dedicated servers, you'd have Activision charging a monthly fee for COD like MMOs do (like World of Warcraft).k-ossuburb said:I don't use either online services, so I don't really have much in the way of a visceral understanding of either system. But I would think that there are some costs that Microsoft have to pay in order to host these games on their system. Games like the popular COD would likely be paid for by Microsoft as it is the intellectual product of multiple studios, and having their game played on any system would require some reimbursement since it is very similar to leasing the product to net the profits that Microsoft would gain from using their property as a means to gain profit.
It's very likely that I'm wrong, I don't really know enough about the economics of the system to say anything for certain. I just assumed it would be a similar agreement that movie studios would have with online streaming sites or something similar.
Well over 90% of Xbox Live's costs deal with Microsoft keeping the store up and running, and Microsoft offers that for free for Silver members. Microsoft isn't going to charge to have the ability to buy stuff from them. But they will charge you for online gaming, Netflix, etc. when they aren't providing those services.ImmortalDrifter said:It makes it so microsoft doesn't lose shitloads of money maintaining the systems as a whole; look at how much money sony is losing on the ps3. (even before all of the hack business) Consoles take a lot of money to produce, and the producers often lose money on the sale. The money i pay ensures better and continued service, which I will gladly pay for.
Also, "I'm white enough to afford it." ~Yahtzee (paraphrase)
Hahaha, that's such huge grammatical pet peeve of mine. I can't believe I let that through. Thanks for the catch.Sonic Doctor said:Fixed.