Why do people pay for Xbox Live?

[Dansrage]

The reason I'm citing that you wouldn't pay for it is because other people are able to get the same services for free, and those companies still turn a really nice profit. It's like this; I realize you buy Blue Bread every day, and you love the taste and wouldn't ever trade it for something else. But what if I told you about a corner market that sells Red Bread at half the price, and it actually tastes just as good if you give it a try?

In the end the question comes down to whether services like XBL and Steam are comparable. As a Steam user, I'd definitely say I enjoy it, and I don't have to pay $15 a month.

I was never "envisioning a mass boycott" or anything, I'm getting people to think about whether, on an personal level, you're not getting what you pay $15 for.

But the red bread they're giving away for free has only half as much dough and you can't spread butter on it, i'd rather keep paying a little more for the blue bread than have to settle for less simply because it's free.
Also, i have a freind who had all of his red bread stolen

Now you're trying to assume "red bread" was specifically referring to PSN. It wasn't. As I said, in the end it comes down the comparative quality of services, mostly between XBL, PSN, and Steam. As I said, I feel Steam is somewhat comparable, and it's not "settling for less." I also see Games For Windows Live as, technically speaking, comparable, only in the sense that it offers many similar features (of course, since barely anyone uses it to any extent it's not all that useful) The analogy I was making assumes "red bread" offers all the same taste and quality.

I do actually use steam, i don't think Steam can really be compared to XBL or PSN because it's cross-platform, it's not linked a specific brand. If you want a 360 you have to use XBL, if you want a PS3 you have to use PSN, but you can have Steam on any configuration of PC or Mac.
Steam is independant of a specific machine.

Actually, I don't quite understand why that excludes it from being considered. In fact, I'd say that's a benefit of it. Nobody using an Xbox can decide "I don't like Xbox Live. I'm going to use PSN." because they'd have to swap their console and all their games for PS3 versions. Besides which, Steam is slowly starting to creep onto the consoles; the beginnings of which are visible in Portal 2.

Just to reiterate, I'm not trying to talk against specific hardware; heck, I think both the 360 and PS3 are great consoles. I'm just talking about the gaming networks they use.

The notable differance is that Xbox and PS3 users have no choice but to use their respective networks, while Steam is only one of many choices available for PC and Mac users, which is why i don't think it can be compared.
Theres no competition for XBL or PSN, theres no chance of losing business if your consumers already own the console, unless they switch their consoles and all their games, which is expensive as hell, so it's pretty rare.
Steam however, has to compete, which means they have to do everything better than their rivals.
They're free because they have to be, if they thought they could get away with it, they would charge, but because of the existence of other free services that wouldn't work.

Even Valve aren't moral paragons of integrity, everyone is out to make money.

 

[Dansrage]

I know a couple people that have gone through 4+ 360s. I have 6 close friends and we all have PS3s, 2 of us got a YLOD after about 2 years. The PS3 isn't perfect; however, the YLOD issue couldn't really have been tested for as it occurs after a year+ of use. The RROD issue was probably known by Microsoft (since standard testing would've easily found the issue) and they released the console anyways.

Yeah there's no way I'm believing this without a source. Also, what kind of standard testing?

It's all relative, i've had the same Xbox 360 Arcade for three years, and i bought it used, so i don't even know how old it is, the only problem i ever had with it was with the TV cable which i could have had replaced for free, but i decided to buy a new one for ?5 so i wouldn't have to wait.
The newer models of 360 do NOT RRoD, everybody keeps using this age-old argument that Xbox 360's explode as soon as you turn them on, it's far from the truth.

 

[Veldel]

Am I the only one who honestly likes the PSN interface more then lives?

I like the XMB better than the Dashboard. The Dashboard just feels to busy with too much stuff that is really unnecessary. The XMB may not be fancy but it's as simple as you can get; I like stuff simple and I like minimalistic type interfaces and themes. Just give me what I need and nothing else.

This is pretty much what my XP desktop looks like (although my background is different now):
http://th01.deviantart.net/fs17/PRE/i/2007/123/d/5/The_Phoenix_Desktop_by_phoenixmgs.jpg

Simple is part of the reason I like it more. The Dashboard can be cluttered and just has to much stuff on it that i honestly dont need or the features i only use on PS3 like Netflix since its vastly better for me atleast

 

[LuckyClover95]

It seems like most people are answering "Because PSN is down so obviously sucks and has loads of issues, HUR HUR HUR LOLZ" but apart from now, I have never encountered a problem with PSN, EVER. This is the first time I have, and it's an excellent free service. Apart from, of course, now. For some reason all the movie and tv channels are working, I don't really get that.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I have a question for you: Why are you such a tight arse that $60 a year is such a ridiculous notion?

It doesn't matter if Live is $5 a year or $500, why should I give someone money for doing absolutely nothing? Examine what Microsoft is "giving" you for your money (all free services and cross-game chat is peer-to-peer) and ask yourself, "Does that make sense?"

I pay so I can use online multiplayer.

But why are you paying Microsoft for a service they aren't providing you? It's like paying EA a monthly fee to play COD, why would you do that?

Secondly, demos on 360 often come out a little bit before the actual game does. MS pays for that, and since they pay for it only the people that are paying them (Gold users) get to play them for the first few weeks.

Thirdly, my brother has a PS3 and despite the fact that it's peer-to-peer internet play instead of on servers, my 360 almost always has a very good connection with little to no lag. His PS3 is decent as well but it isn't anywhere near as good.

Fourthly, as pretty as the PS3's interface is it isn't as intuitive as the 360's. The 360's is just really, really well designed. Many others have stated similar things.

Fifthly, all those games on demand and XBLA games take up server space. Sony's is free, yes, but they also had to implement a pay-for plan, remember? It's called "Playstation Plus".

Sixthly, better security. Sure, the hackers didn't get much, but the fact that they got something is downright scary for anyone who had credit card info on there.

Seventhly, cross-game chat.

- Both the 360 and PS3 use peer-to-peer networking for online games, COD plays exactly the same on both consoles. Sony has more games (Warhawk, MAG, Killzone, Resistance, etc.) with dedicated servers (not peer-to-peer) than Microsoft. Name one game that's a 1st-party game for Microsoft that uses dedicated servers? Halo and Gears don't use dedicated servers by the way. Any game in which you experience host migration is using a peer-to-peer system.

- Both interfaces work just fine, it's just a matter of opinion of which you feel is better, this is something subjective not objective.

- Sony's pay-for plan actually gives you discounts and free games (and other stuff). Does Gold give you discounts (or free stuff) that Silver members don't get?

- Live can get hacked. PSN may have had less security but nothing important got stolen and none of the hackers is going to be able to hijack and PSN accounts because Sony is going to make everyone change their password when PSN is back up. And, there has been no report of someone using a PSN user's credit card due to the attack. How is that not safe? I'm not worried about anything, I got a new card over my bank's website in about a minute just in case. I was inconvenienced for only a minute of my time.

- I don't care about cross-game chat, if I had it, I wouldn't use it. I'll give the Xbox that though, but it's not something I'd pay $60/year for even if I did use it.

You can see where the money is going when DLC for Fallout and COd get released early on 360.

That, and it IS more stable all around. When you pay for something, there is the incentive to maintain upkeep.

You do realize you are not paying Microsoft to get your games or DLC early, you would've got those games/DLC at the same time regardless, it's just that PS3 users get the games LATER. You are paying Microsoft money only to spite PS3 users and nothing else. No customer actually wins with timed exclusives, there's only customers that lose. Sony pays for timed exclusives as well, and I don't agree with them doing that either.

If Fallout is more stable on 360 it's just because the 360 is more like a PC and the game is just buggier on the PS3, not because Microsoft paid Bethesda or Obsidian money to make the game more stable on 360. The Fallout games are buggy on all systems.

Fallout isn't more stable, the online experience is more stable.

I haven't play New Vegas, but isn't it all single player, what online experience?

Because they charge for it.

But in all seriousness, Online is about 90% of my time gaming. PSN doesn't cost as much money, but when you think that a PS3 cost about 50 dollars more (from the last time I checked) and doesn't have the same amount of support and a faulty wireless adaptor, you are in essence paying about the same.

I just want to point out that for the longest time, 360's did not have any built-in wireless adapters whatsoever. So if you had a wireless connection, you needed to buy a router specifically for the console. Considering that you can typically get third party routers for somewhere between between $20-$30 it wasn't that big a deal. But guess what Microsoft was charging for their "official" wireless router at the time?

$100.

I mean good god, that was at least $70 overpriced. For me, that cemented Xbox Live as a bit of a scam, price-wise. I mean if Microsoft was willing to cheat their customers that much just so they could access the service in the first place, then it was hard for me to think Live could be worth $60 a year. That's a good chunk of the reason I opted for a PS3 once the price went down.

I'm not doubting that Live is a good service, I just don't see anything that drastically different between Live and PSN that makes me thing the former is worth paying extra for. The same goes for PSN Plus, so don't go thinking I'm a fanboy or anything here.

P.S It appears the official adapter is now typically listed at $80, which is still way too god damned much. [http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Wireless-Network-Adapter-Networks/dp/B000B6MLV4]

This is just more proof showing all Microsoft does is screw over their customers. Also, if you got a Xbox without a hard drive, you had to buy an official overpriced HD from Microsoft. I can put any hard drive in my PS3.

 

[Dansrage]

Double post, ignore.

 

[NinjaTigerXIII]

You know what I thought of when I saw the title of this thread

Spoiler

Just shut up xbox elitists and sony fans, just please shut up.

 

[Dansrage]

I have a question for you: Why are you such a tight arse that $60 a year is such a ridiculous notion?

It doesn't matter if Live is $5 a year or $500, why should I give someone money for doing absolutely nothing? Examine what Microsoft is "giving" you for your money (all free services and cross-game chat is peer-to-peer) and ask yourself, "Does that make sense?"

I pay so I can use online multiplayer.

But why are you paying Microsoft for a service they aren't providing you? It's like paying EA a monthly fee to play COD, why would you do that?

Secondly, demos on 360 often come out a little bit before the actual game does. MS pays for that, and since they pay for it only the people that are paying them (Gold users) get to play them for the first few weeks.

Thirdly, my brother has a PS3 and despite the fact that it's peer-to-peer internet play instead of on servers, my 360 almost always has a very good connection with little to no lag. His PS3 is decent as well but it isn't anywhere near as good.

Fourthly, as pretty as the PS3's interface is it isn't as intuitive as the 360's. The 360's is just really, really well designed. Many others have stated similar things.

Fifthly, all those games on demand and XBLA games take up server space. Sony's is free, yes, but they also had to implement a pay-for plan, remember? It's called "Playstation Plus".

Sixthly, better security. Sure, the hackers didn't get much, but the fact that they got something is downright scary for anyone who had credit card info on there.

Seventhly, cross-game chat.

- Both the 360 and PS3 use peer-to-peer networking for online games, COD plays exactly the same on both consoles. Sony has more games (Warhawk, MAG, Killzone, Resistance, etc.) with dedicated servers (not peer-to-peer) than Microsoft. Name one game that's a 1st-party game for Microsoft that uses dedicated servers? Halo and Gears don't use dedicated servers by the way. Any game in which you experience host migration is using a peer-to-peer system.

- Both interfaces work just fine, it's just a matter of opinion of which you feel is better, this is something subjective not objective.

- Sony's pay-for plan actually gives you discounts and free games (and other stuff). Does Gold give you discounts (or free stuff) that Silver members don't get?

- Live can get hacked. PSN may have had less security but nothing important got stolen and none of the hackers is going to be able to hijack and PSN accounts because Sony is going to make everyone change their password when PSN is back up. And, there has been no report of someone using a PSN user's credit card due to the attack. How is that not safe? I'm not worried about anything, I got a new card over my bank's website in about a minute just in case. I was inconvenienced for only a minute of my time.

- I don't care about cross-game chat, if I had it, I wouldn't use it. I'll give the Xbox that though, but it's not something I'd pay $60/year for even if I did use it.

You can see where the money is going when DLC for Fallout and COd get released early on 360.

That, and it IS more stable all around. When you pay for something, there is the incentive to maintain upkeep.

You do realize you are not paying Microsoft to get your games or DLC early, you would've got those games/DLC at the same time regardless, it's just that PS3 users get the games LATER. You are paying Microsoft money only to spite PS3 users and nothing else. No customer actually wins with timed exclusives, there's only customers that lose. Sony pays for timed exclusives as well, and I don't agree with them doing that either.

If Fallout is more stable on 360 it's just because the 360 is more like a PC and the game is just buggier on the PS3, not because Microsoft paid Bethesda or Obsidian money to make the game more stable on 360. The Fallout games are buggy on all systems.

Fallout isn't more stable, the online experience is more stable.

I haven't play New Vegas, but isn't it all single player, what online experience?

Because they charge for it.

But in all seriousness, Online is about 90% of my time gaming. PSN doesn't cost as much money, but when you think that a PS3 cost about 50 dollars more (from the last time I checked) and doesn't have the same amount of support and a faulty wireless adaptor, you are in essence paying about the same.

I just want to point out that for the longest time, 360's did not have any built-in wireless adapters whatsoever. So if you had a wireless connection, you needed to buy a router specifically for the console. Considering that you can typically get third party routers for somewhere between between $20-$30 it wasn't that big a deal. But guess what Microsoft was charging for their "official" wireless router at the time?

$100.

I mean good god, that was at least $70 overpriced. For me, that cemented Xbox Live as a bit of a scam, price-wise. I mean if Microsoft was willing to cheat their customers that much just so they could access the service in the first place, then it was hard for me to think Live could be worth $60 a year. That's a good chunk of the reason I opted for a PS3 once the price went down.

I'm not doubting that Live is a good service, I just don't see anything that drastically different between Live and PSN that makes me thing the former is worth paying extra for. The same goes for PSN Plus, so don't go thinking I'm a fanboy or anything here.

P.S It appears the official adapter is now typically listed at $80, which is still way too god damned much. [http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-Wireless-Network-Adapter-Networks/dp/B000B6MLV4]

This is just more proof showing all Microsoft does is screw over their customers. Also, if you got a Xbox without a hard drive, you had to buy an official overpriced HD from Microsoft. I can put any hard drive in my PS3.

You can use any drive for 360s too, i hate it when people like you try to make points without knowing anything about the subject matter, it's the very defenition of a fanboy.

 

[ultratog1028]

Because microsoft can charge for it.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

This is not at all a Live sucks, PSN is better thread, I actually think both services are very similar in what they do and how well they do it. Everything I'm about to say is completely factual.

My problem with Live is that Microsoft wants to blah blah blah blah blah

Translation, I don't agree with other people using a system I believe inferior, so I'm going to try and call them out on it so that they will change their mind and transfer over to the much more superior and free system that has been around for less time and has been hacked into oblivion in the past 2 weeks.

We don't care. We can afford 60 dollars a year. I can pay off my Live account for a year in what I would make for 2 hours work.

I said I pretty much feel both services at pretty much equal, and I would be happy with either service. I'm just asking you to look at what Microsoft is making you pay for, that is all.

I know a couple people that have gone through 4+ 360s. I have 6 close friends and we all have PS3s, 2 of us got a YLOD after about 2 years. The PS3 isn't perfect; however, the YLOD issue couldn't really have been tested for as it occurs after a year+ of use. The RROD issue was probably known by Microsoft (since standard testing would've easily found the issue) and they released the console anyways.

Yeah there's no way I'm believing this without a source. Also, what kind of standard testing?

If RROD was discovered during "Standard Testing" then there's no way they would have still sent out the consoles with a major defect that would cost them money *Free console fix/Free console when RROD occurs*.

EDIT: I would be right behind you if the issue was discovered AFTER shipping and they didn't bother recalling the originals, then tweaked the newer batches so that the issue didn't exist. Considering the cost of re-calling the entire stock of original 360's with the issue would seriously outweigh the cost of replacing a few machines. That is a scenario I'd find plausible.

Research the RROD issue and you'll know it was a fundamental hardware flaw. Research the YLOD issue, it has to do with the US mandating companies no longer using lead solder. If the PS3 used lead solder, the YLOD wouldn't be an issue. Plus, it took Microsoft 2-3 years to release a new SKU that didn't have the RROD issue after I'm sure they then knew about it a few months after launch when people started getting RRODs. So, even best case scenario (MS didn't know shit at launch), MS looks pretty bad for taking so long to fix it. And, Microsoft just kept sending people replacement consoles over and over again that have the same issue.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You can use any drive for 360s too, i hate it when people like you try to make points without knowing anything about the subject matter, it's the very defenition of a fanboy.

Did Microsoft change that? I really thought you had to buy the official MS hard drive. You can just go to the store, pick up a hard drive, and put it in the 360? I'm not purposefully trying to post mis-information, so I apologize if I did. And, my argument for paying for Live has nothing to do with whether you can put a hard drive of your choosing in either console.

 

[Katana314]

The reason I'm citing that you wouldn't pay for it is because other people are able to get the same services for free, and those companies still turn a really nice profit. It's like this; I realize you buy Blue Bread every day, and you love the taste and wouldn't ever trade it for something else. But what if I told you about a corner market that sells Red Bread at half the price, and it actually tastes just as good if you give it a try?

In the end the question comes down to whether services like XBL and Steam are comparable. As a Steam user, I'd definitely say I enjoy it, and I don't have to pay $15 a month.

I was never "envisioning a mass boycott" or anything, I'm getting people to think about whether, on an personal level, you're not getting what you pay $15 for.

But the red bread they're giving away for free has only half as much dough and you can't spread butter on it, i'd rather keep paying a little more for the blue bread than have to settle for less simply because it's free.
Also, i have a freind who had all of his red bread stolen

Now you're trying to assume "red bread" was specifically referring to PSN. It wasn't. As I said, in the end it comes down the comparative quality of services, mostly between XBL, PSN, and Steam. As I said, I feel Steam is somewhat comparable, and it's not "settling for less." I also see Games For Windows Live as, technically speaking, comparable, only in the sense that it offers many similar features (of course, since barely anyone uses it to any extent it's not all that useful) The analogy I was making assumes "red bread" offers all the same taste and quality.

I do actually use steam, i don't think Steam can really be compared to XBL or PSN because it's cross-platform, it's not linked a specific brand. If you want a 360 you have to use XBL, if you want a PS3 you have to use PSN, but you can have Steam on any configuration of PC or Mac.
Steam is independant of a specific machine.

Actually, I don't quite understand why that excludes it from being considered. In fact, I'd say that's a benefit of it. Nobody using an Xbox can decide "I don't like Xbox Live. I'm going to use PSN." because they'd have to swap their console and all their games for PS3 versions. Besides which, Steam is slowly starting to creep onto the consoles; the beginnings of which are visible in Portal 2.

Just to reiterate, I'm not trying to talk against specific hardware; heck, I think both the 360 and PS3 are great consoles. I'm just talking about the gaming networks they use.

The notable differance is that Xbox and PS3 users have no choice but to use their respective networks, while Steam is only one of many choices available for PC and Mac users, which is why i don't think it can be compared.
Theres no competition for XBL or PSN, theres no chance of losing business if your consumers already own the console, unless they switch their consoles and all their games, which is expensive as hell, so it's pretty rare.
Steam however, has to compete, which means they have to do everything better than their rivals.
They're free because they have to be, if they thought they could get away with it, they would charge, but because of the existence of other free services that wouldn't work.

Even Valve aren't moral paragons of integrity, everyone is out to make money.

AGAIN, AND AGAIN, I am NOT trying to argue that companies shouldn't try their hardest to make money, taking whatever steps people will pay for. WHY will you not recognize this?
In fact, I wasn't even trying to talk about what companies should do. My question is, is the main reason you use XBL simply that you don't have much choice in the matter? Some other people seem to say they pay the price because it's worth that price, not because they're locked into it.

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

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.

This is the part where you're mistaken. It isn't also supply and demand, it is just supply and demand. Cost of resources has essentially nothing to do with the price of a service. Many times a good is easy to supply and thus prices are driven down to nearer resource costs, but in this case the good is not easy to supply since only Microsoft has the right to license things.

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 charging you for use of a service that depends crucially on its own intellectual property (the hardware you're playing on). Any company in a similar situation would do exactly the same thing.

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.

Except in that case the parent has no justification for taking the bag. Microsoft is justified by its properties that you're using to play the games.

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.

I sort of lose the point of your analogy here. Does Microsoft have some independent interest in trying to prevent you from accessing too many games online?

That's what Microsoft is doing and it's just a huge jerk-ass move on Microsoft's part and nothing else.

I don't have a problem with companies making profit or charging for services as I have a cell phone and Internet service. The cell phone company is providing me cell phone service, not giving me free phone service and making me pay a monthly fee for the phone itself. Nor is the ISP offering free downstream access only to charge for the upstream which is required to use the downstream. If Microsoft wants to charge for Live or Sony for PSN, let them (I'll pay if I like the service and feel the service is fairly priced), but don't charge me for something you are not providing and are just withholding (online gaming, Netflix, etc.) because then you're just a dick.

If you think that's dickly, that's fine (in many ways, I agree ethically). My point was never about feelings toward the practice, only about how it's pretty normal business practice. Virtually every business tries to put themselves into as near as possible the situation that Microsoft is in with Live. As you say, they have very low operating costs and get others to provide the resources for them while keeping all of the profit. That said, I suppose this is actually best thought of as a result of the legal system's attitudes toward intellectual property - that intellectual ownership justifies licensing requirements for derivative products. But again, virtually every business tries to do this, so refusing to support businesses based on this is going to get very tiring. If you want to blame someone, it's not really the fault of Microsoft so much as it is IP law.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

That's what I asked you to prove. I also asked what "Standard Testing" was.

You're back-stepping a bit, now saying you're not sure when they found out (yet still managing to slip in a snarky "MS SUCKSlol"), but I still don't know what "standard testing" means or what it entails.

Also, you can't make a claim, then when people ask you to "prove it", tell them to Google it.
Possibly the most uncool thing since DB:GT

Standard testing means they ran the console and made sure it would work without breaking for a month.

 

[Dansrage]

AGAIN, AND AGAIN, I am NOT trying to argue that companies shouldn't try their hardest to make money, taking whatever steps people will pay for. WHY will you not recognize this?
In fact, I wasn't even trying to talk about what companies should do. My question is, is the main reason you use XBL simply that you don't have much choice in the matter? Some other people seem to say they pay the price because it's worth that price, not because they're locked into it.

I can't deny that it would be nice to have XBL free in the same way it would be nice to have no taxes or free car insurance, but it really is no problem to pay for it.
?30 every year really is a measly sum of money, if you tally up everything i spend on games and equipement in a year it's absolutely insignificant.
Besides, free or not, i genuinely think that XBL delivers the best service of all the consoles, otherwise i wouldn't pay for it.

Did Microsoft change that? I really thought you had to buy the official MS hard drive. You can just go to the store, pick up a hard drive, and put it in the 360? I'm not purposefully trying to post mis-information, so I apologize if I did. And, my argument for paying for Live has nothing to do with whether you can put a hard drive of your choosing in either console.

No problem man, excuse me i was in ULTIMATE CONSOLE DEFENSE MODE.
Yes, you can infact use any drive for the 360 you like, and it has been the case for at least the three years i have owned my Arcade.
You do, however, have to format the drive in a special way so that it can only be read by your 360, i assume to prevent modding and piracy.
I have all of my save files and my profile backed up on a 2Gb USB key, and i use a 500Gb Verbatim HDD for all of my game addons and installs along with the 20Gb official HDD the Arcade came with.

 

[RA92]

OP

I didn't bother going through 13 pages of comments. The first 2 pages with people calling your rather well-asserted arguments 'trolling' and 'flamebait' to validate their purchases was enough to put me off. One of the many reasons why day by day I'm starting to spend more time on RPS...

 

[hydrahh]

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.

Would you pay the strippers money if they didn't strip?

Sorry for the late response to this quote, but I have a job so I can't be on here 24/7. I don't get the point of this comment.

All I am saying is that 60 bucks is nothing now a days. People spend more on cigarettes in a week. Lots of you people are making something out of nothing. Stop and think about how much money you spend on random shit like a pop or a bag of chips and pretty soon you will see that you probably spend a year of xbox live in about a week.

Other than that, these stupid fanboy threads are nothing better than troll bait, and I hope that the sun comes up soon to turn you all into stone

 

[utopaline]

I pay so I can use online multiplayer.

But why are you paying Microsoft for a service they aren't providing you? It's like paying EA a monthly fee to play COD, why would you do that?

Not to troll here, but you asked us a question, we are giving you answers and you are basically arguing with everyone's answers. You knew that people would say
- to play multiplayer
- to be secure
- or because we have to

why didn't you just name the thread "PSN is FREE and XBL is not" instead of asking a question.

just saying

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

snip

That's funny, I don't recall contesting the RROD issue at all... I'm aware it happened and I'm aware it was a hardware issue. The only time I have doubts with it is when the constant internet stories appear in fanboy threads about everyone having AT LEAST four 360's that have spontaneously combusted through no fault of their own. I'm sure it has happened, but not to every PS3 Owner on the escapist.

The RROD issue was probably known by Microsoft (since standard testing would've easily found the issue) and they released the console anyways.

That's what I asked you to prove. I also asked what "Standard Testing" was.

You're back-stepping a bit, now saying you're not sure when they found out (yet still managing to slip in a snarky "MS SUCKSlol"), but I still don't know what "standard testing" means or what it entails.

Also, you can't make a claim, then when people ask you to "prove it", tell them to Google it.
Possibly the most uncool thing since DB:GT

People will always bring up the red-rings, even though some cases like my Xbox going for 4 years with no problems at all, finally red-ringing, and easily being solved by getting rid of the dust buildup.

 

[Elamdri]

This is not at all a Live sucks, PSN is better thread, I actually think both services are very similar in what they do and how well they do it. Everything I'm about to say is completely factual.

My problem with Live is that Microsoft wants to have their cake and eat it too as Microsoft charges you for services they don't provide. The FREE Silver Live account offers services that actually cost Microsoft money and resources to provide. Running and maintaining the servers that store the games, demos, DLC, etc. for everyone to download is at least 90% of the expenses of the Live service. And, all that stuff is offered for FREE through Silver membership because Microsoft wants everyone to have access to their store so people can spend money in their store.

For Live Gold membership, Microsoft charges you for Netflix, online gaming, Facebook, last.fm, etc. So, in order for you to have the ability to watch Netflix, you have to pay Netflix, your ISP, and MICROSOFT!!! Microsoft is not incurring any costs of any kind when you watch stuff off Netflix, Netflix is streaming movies from their servers using their bandwidth to you over your bandwidth that you are paying for, Microsoft is not involved in any way. To prove, rather simply, for people who might not believe that, PS3 users can still use Netflix with PSN down.

Onto online gaming, which is another big slap in the face to Live customers from Microsoft. If you play any third party game (e.g. COD), Microsoft is not incurring any costs or bandwidth when you play COD online as you are not playing on Microsoft's servers (you are not even playing on a server as almost every console online game is player hosted) and the publisher of the game is running the game servers that just track stats and nothing else. For a game like COD, the developer puts probably about half its resources into the multiplayer aspect of the game so about half the money you payed for the game is for the multiplayer. On Live, you have to pay Microsoft to unlock game content (online multiplayer) that you already payed for when you bought the game. The only thing that would make sense is if for Microsoft to allow online multiplayer for 3rd party games for Silver accounts, but only allow Gold accounts to pay first party games online. However, Microsoft isn't going to do that because people would be like, "I can play COD or Bad Company for free, screw Halo and Gears" and those communities would be a lot smaller. Also, Microsoft doesn't even run any dedicated servers whereas Sony does run dedicated severs for a few games (MAG, Killzone, Warhawk, etc.).

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.

This is why I will never pay for Live as I'm not going to pay someone for a service they aren't providing, it's that simple. If Sony pulled this, I'd turn into a PC gamer and use Steam, which also provides the same services Live Gold does for free.

It's only like 60 bucks, who cares?