Why Do We Pay for xbox live?

  • Thread starter Thread starter shaka
  • 40 comments
  • 23,150 views
S

shaka

Messages
223
Messages
Shaka
http://live-360.net/xbox-live/why-do-we-pay/#comment-2268

We’re all paying for XBOX Live here. Other consoles have inferior, but free online gaming features. The PC has free and much superior online play. So my question is why do we continue to pay for a service that doesn’t even have a server for an individual game? When Halo 3 came out, Live froze every 5 seconds, because of the load of new users. Since we are paying $50 each, why can’t Microsoft buy every game a server?

The biggest complaint for Live comes with price. You hear people talking about Live should be free and all. The price isn’t that bad, and the service is a lot better than the Playstation Network. However, the Playstation Network has one advantage and that is the fact that every game has its own server. This generally means that each game doesn’t have to bear the burden of another. When Halo 3 came out, the entire XBOX Live service wouldn’t have had issues if Halo 3 was running on its own set of dedicated servers.

The biggest benefit for Live comes from downloadable content and demos however. They download much faster than on any other console, and sometimes even faster than PC patches (EA’s servers are slow). So we have an advantage there. Is it worth $50, then money for every little content pack? And what about going on Halo 2, and getting the message about updating or working on the servers and having to wait 5 minutes to be able to search on matchmaking. Annoying on a service I’m paying for to say the least.
Click to expand...

After seeing what it offered, ad after ad, pay for downloads that should be free I got disgusted. Then joke of all jokes, MS has even tried to make PC gamers pay to use it. WHAT A LAUGH!!
they arent even dedicated servers for 99% of games, they are simply peer to peer! Anyone willing to pay for P2P is stupid, plain and simple.

the fact imo xbox live will never be as good as PSN, PSN is free and its better.

no lag like xbox live
no ads like xbox live
no p2p service like xbox live
deidicated servers for games that xbox live lacks.
not a crappy service that has been down several times expecially during xmas like xbox live.

PSN games are bigger and hell alot more fun like Resistance supporting 40 players online, Warhawk 32 its complete madness,
the top games on the x360 support 16 online at max, really what a joke.:grumpy:
 
If you made a service as successful as XBox live, you'd expect to get paid for it, right?

Take a top ten game on Xbox 360; Call of Duty 4. Servers are limited to 12 people a server for a reason; if it got any bigger, think how flooded and chaotic small maps (even big ones) would be.
 
shaka
http://live-360.net/xbox-live/why-do-we-pay/#comment-2268



After seeing what it offered, ad after ad, pay for downloads that should be free I got disgusted. Then joke of all jokes, MS has even tried to make PC gamers pay to use it. WHAT A LAUGH!!
they arent even dedicated servers for 99% of games, they are simply peer to peer! Anyone willing to pay for P2P is stupid, plain and simple.

the fact imo xbox live will never be as good as PSN, PSN is free and its better.

no lag like xbox live
no ads like xbox live
no p2p service like xbox live
deidicated servers for games that xbox live lacks.
not a crappy service that has been down several times expecially during xmas like xbox live.

PSN games are bigger and hell alot more fun like Resistance supporting 40 players online, Warhawk 32 its complete madness,
the top games on the x360 support 16 online at max, really what a joke.:grumpy:
Click to expand...

Are you a Sony shill?
 
shaka
the fact imo xbox live will never be as good as PSN, PSN is free and its better.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does seem as good as XBL, but:

no lag like xbox live
Click to expand...
It's exactly the same when it's peer-to-peer
no p2p service like xbox live
Click to expand...
Most games, especially on multi-console, still use peer-to-peer, like Call of Duty 4.
not a crappy service that has been down several times expecially during xmas like xbox live.
Click to expand...
Although it was unacceptable for it to be down as much as it was, PSN hasn't been properly tested yet since it hasn't received near as much usage.

PSN games are bigger and hell alot more fun like Resistance supporting 40 players online, Warhawk 32 its complete madness,
the top games on the x360 support 16 online at max, really what a joke.:grumpy:
Click to expand...
Frontlines: Fuel of War on 360 supports 40 players, and I'm sure there are a few other games that are over 16 players. And the gameplay isn't crap either - both versions of games on Xbox and Playstation online are just as stable as one or another when they're peer-to-peer.

Although I agree with your money not being well-spent, do change your facts a bit.
 
The answer is simple... it's Microsoft. They don't do anything for free. They'd charge you a monthly fee just to use the console for anything if they had a way of doing it.

Case in point... UT3 and user-created maps and mods. Free and no problem on PS3. But Epic and Microsoft have gotten into it over this on the X360, because Microsoft doesn't want to allow that kind of user-created content on the system. I think Valve is also pushing for user content. Oh, MS will give you various "logical" reasons for it, but it all boils down to the fact that they can't charge money for something you download for free on your PC to transfer to the 360. They'd like nothing better than to nickel-and-dime every single user out there for everything that they want the console to do.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out over the next year or so, as more games come along with the potential for things like user-created content. Sony is going off of the idea that more people will buy the game in order to get the content rather than paying for the content directly. And they're liable to make more money from direct game sales than from online marketplace transactions.
 
They charge for Xbox Live because people pay it. If people stopped paying for it then MS would lower the price until people started paying again or not at all if they ended up making it free.

Sony also needed an advantage when they release the PS3 because of the higher price tag. I don't think many people would have bought a $600 system and then been thrilled to have to pay an additional yearly cost.
 
You know, I must be the luckiest Xbox 360 owner in the world, because I feel I get exactly what I pay for with Xbox Live: subscription to unlimited online multiplayer gaming as well as access to demos and downloadable content (should I choose to purchase it).

When I go to the slot car track, I pay $5 for a 1/2hr of track time on one lane for practice. When I go to the arcade, I pay 4 tokens to play Wangan Midnight:Maximum Tune. When I go to the movie theater, I pay $7.50 to watch the movie.

Gee, it seems that you pay for your entertainment, doesn't it?
 
Are you really complaining about roughly 80p per week? the DLC wipes the floor with ps3, The dashboard is great, the software updates for the console are excellent and the extras like using msn, full friends list and private messaging and chat are miles ahead of the competition.
 
I have both Xbox 360 and PS3 - and all i can say is xbox live is IMO far greater than PSN!

I bought my PS3 the week after launch and i have seen little to no changes - especially in the PSN Store its crap - and you have to buy almost everything thats in it!

The simplicity of Live is far greater - especially to communicate with friends - i feel part of a large community with Xbox live but with my PS3 I dont get that feeling at all. when i want to chat with a friend or see who's online or even see my friends friends i can.

I cant see me being a fan of PSN unless crucial changes are made to communicating with friends - when i go online with my ps3 little to no-one talks, on the 360 you cant get people to shut up, Sony made a big mistake in not including headsets!

I will gladly continue to pay for Xbox Live
 
It'd be nice if it was free, but I'm only paying just over €1 a week to use it. That's damned cheap, considering what you get, even if Sony are providing a similar service for free.
 
shaka
http://live-360.net/xbox-live/why-do-we-pay/#comment-2268



After seeing what it offered, ad after ad, pay for downloads that should be free I got disgusted. Then joke of all jokes, MS has even tried to make PC gamers pay to use it. WHAT A LAUGH!!
they arent even dedicated servers for 99% of games, they are simply peer to peer! Anyone willing to pay for P2P is stupid, plain and simple.

the fact imo xbox live will never be as good as PSN, PSN is free and its better.

no lag like xbox live
no ads like xbox live
no p2p service like xbox live
deidicated servers for games that xbox live lacks.
not a crappy service that has been down several times expecially during xmas like xbox live.

PSN games are bigger and hell alot more fun like Resistance supporting 40 players online, Warhawk 32 its complete madness,
the top games on the x360 support 16 online at max, really what a joke.:grumpy:
Click to expand...

*cough* Sony fanboy *cough* :rolleyes:
 
PS3 and 360 gamer here.

I would immediately pay monthly for PSN service if it was even half as good as Live is. Live is simply polished to the maximum. I don't have a yearly subscription either, I go get myself a 3 month pre-paid Live card when a game comes out that I want to play online. That way I save the money when I'm not really using my 360.

I respect PSN for being free of cost, but the fact that that it is so... badly designed, doesn't float my boat.
 
After Playing Playsation 3 online, and seeing a lot less lag with 40 players rather then LAGGY halo 3 with 16.. ADDs and even paying for some stupid icon pictures, and themes.. I open my eyes and quit that Mircro$oft evil company for good. Live is not that good ..
 
Live is great, I really enjoy what you get from it. I would gladly pay for PSN as well. And Microsoft isn't any more evil then any other electronics company, Sony to has it's fair share of it.
 
Joey D
And Microsoft isn't any more evil then any other electronics company
Click to expand...

Micro$oft make Windows....I would say thats quite evil! :p

Have you ever spoke to their tech support? If you have a problem with XP their solution is to buy Vista!!!

At least $ony is not THAT bad!! If you have a problem with a PS1 $ony will still help you with it and not just tell you to go buy a PS3.

Also M$ took the XBOX off the shelves pretty much the same day 360 came out! Where as $ony are still selling PS2's. Actions speak louder than words! M$ gave their existing customers the finger, and $ony didn't!

However im NOT saying $ony are perfect! Far from it! But they are not half as bad as M$!
 
Sony has the worst tech support I've ever dealt with after Comcast cable. I tried to get my camera fixed through them and it was like pulling teeth. Personally I like the either buy the new technology or get left behind mentality, keeping outdated things does not advance us.

I know many people don't think that way through which is fine, I just prefer to be on the cutting edge as much as I can be.
 
Joey D
1) Sony has the worst tech support I've ever dealt with after Comcast cable. I tried to get my camera fixed through them and it was like pulling teeth.

2) Personally I like the either buy the new technology or get left behind mentality, keeping outdated things does not advance us.

I know many people don't think that way through which is fine, I just prefer to be on the cutting edge as much as I can be.
Click to expand...

1) Maybe in the US (heard lots of bad things about Sony America TBH), but in the UK they are EXCELLENT!! Had them replace a few consoles in the past, all they do is take your serial number, register your console with them (if not already done) and then take your details and 2 days later a guy shows up at your door with a replacement and an empty box for the broken console!

Best customer service I've had for any games console iv owned by far!

2) Me too, but with regards to games, most "casual gamers"/average joe dont want to spend £300/$500 for a games machine! So the PS2/XBOX are ideal for them until the newer gen consoles drop in price. I know the 360 arcade is only £180/$299 so its not really as big a deal now as it was when 360 just launched, but to some people its still too much to pay for a "game console".

I know they can be used for more than just games, but your average joe essentially sees them as gaming devices and nothing more.
 
H3rmaN
Also M$ took the XBOX off the shelves pretty much the same day 360 came out! Where as $ony are still selling PS2's. Actions speak louder than words! M$ gave their existing customers the finger, and $ony didn't!
Click to expand...
The reason PS2s stayed on shop shelves was simply because they were still selling very well. Why would Sony take a product off the shelves that was selling like crazy even 6 years after it was first released? As for the Xbox, it wasn't selling well any more at all, so it made perfect sense for Microsoft to replace it completely with the 360.

I'm no fan of either company. Sony putting rootkits on CDs was an absolute disgrace amongst other things typical of a multibillion dollar corporation. Microsoft, well, they're just Microsoft and no more need be said.

I wouldn't advise anyone to try to take the moral upper hand and defend or attack either of the companies.
 
Its $4.00 a month (less than a dollar a week) for the best online experience that I have seen. Well worth it in my opinion. Also the better your online connection is, the better online gaming will be for you. 👍
 
My main gripe with LIVE! is that it uses a P2P system!! AND You have to pay for it! If it was free and used P2P then fair enough, but the fact you have to pay means it should at least have dedicated servers!!

PSN is free and it has dedicated servers for some games, but not all admitedly! However....its free!
 
shaka
http://live-360.net/xbox-live/why-do-we-pay/#comment-2268



After seeing what it offered, ad after ad, pay for downloads that should be free I got disgusted. Then joke of all jokes, MS has even tried to make PC gamers pay to use it. WHAT A LAUGH!!
they arent even dedicated servers for 99% of games, they are simply peer to peer! Anyone willing to pay for P2P is stupid, plain and simple.

the fact imo xbox live will never be as good as PSN, PSN is free and its better.

no lag like xbox live
no ads like xbox live
no p2p service like xbox live
deidicated servers for games that xbox live lacks.
not a crappy service that has been down several times expecially during xmas like xbox live.

PSN games are bigger and hell alot more fun like Resistance supporting 40 players online, Warhawk 32 its complete madness,
the top games on the x360 support 16 online at max, really what a joke.:grumpy:
Click to expand...

Red is your opinion, which you make to be 100% fact. Crappy connection is to do with YOUR connection 👎

XBOX live IS a crappy service. Which is why no one uses it and everyone is on PSN.

oh wait..
 
I must say that if I had a 360 and paid for live I would feel guilty for all the times I wouldn't be using it... especially when doing coursework or on holiday etc..

Yes it claims to have better performance but I have not had any problems playing online on the PS3. Plus its advert free which it funny because you pay for live AND get adverts.

When Home comes it will be a real selling feature and will also be free, if this was M$ they would charge you for live then charge to use Home!

For the casual online gamer I think the PS3's online is better because you can use it every minute of the day or not touch it for months and it doesnt matter..

After about 10 years of use can you imagine how many live subscriptions you will have paid for!

Robin
 
Alex.
Red is your opinion, which you make to be 100% fact. Crappy connection is to do with YOUR connection 👎

XBOX live IS a crappy service. Which is why no one uses it and everyone is on PSN.

oh wait..
Click to expand...

Well PSN is free, so that's not his opinion but fact ;). Which doesn't mean that I agree with him though....
 
Alex.
Red is your opinion, which you make to be 100% fact. Crappy connection is to do with YOUR connection 👎

XBOX live IS a crappy service. Which is why no one uses it and everyone is on PSN.

oh wait..
Click to expand...

Paying for p2p stupid? Well kind of!

PSN free? yes!

PSN better? No!

No lag on PSN? Not true, iv seen other players with quite bad lag on GT5: Prologue

PSN not down as much as LIVE!...? True

PSN more fun? No, but I wouldn't really say its less fun either!

DONT put words in my mouth! I DID NOT say all the stuff in red was "fact", but it IS a fact that LIVE! uses p2p! Do you not find it a bit unfair that you have to PAY for p2p when PS3 AND PC get dedicated servers for FREE! All I said is that LIVE! SHOULD have dedicated servers!

Where did I say anything about crappy connection?! Please point that out to me....

On PC you can get 50 player matches of Call of Duty...why?! Because of dedicated servers!!

LIVE! is good, PSN is also good. I've got all 3 consoles anyway, so I don't really care.

The only system that has really poor online gaming in my opinion is the Wii!

Your just another 360 fanboy who doesn't like it when people point out the bad parts of the XBOX brand!

Well the fact of the matter is that ALL the consoles have good and bad points, so just deal with it!
 
H3rman. I quoted 'shaka's' post. It's his to explain.

Unless I've missed something..
 
The thing about PSN and Xbox Live is that so many people are claiming that one is obviously inferior and more laggy than the other that it's impossible to know just from reading forums which is actually better. I suspect that any differences have been exaggerated and blown out or proportion just like must of these silly fanboy debates on the internet.
 
Hell if I know... I sure ain't gonna pay full price though and I'm not going to start anytime soon.
 
Alex.
H3rman. I quoted 'shaka's' post. It's his to explain.

Unless I've missed something..
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know you quoted shaka's post, but you said what you highlighted in red was my opinion and that I think it is 100% fact.

I was responding telling you what I really think about the parts you highlighted in red and that I dont think the stuff in red is 100% fact.

If I have misunderstood and you were not responding to me at all, then I 110% appologise!!
 

Latest Posts

Back