Inevitability
New member
i mean, PSN is free, so wtf does M$ need to charge me to playing a game that i already paid for??!!
Why does M$ charge for XBL?
- Thread starter Inevitability
- Start date
Inevitability
New member
they suck online multiplayer balls, you mean.
for single player gaming, it's fine
for single player gaming, it's fine
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Creative criticism there.
Now on to the real reason.
Firstly PSN recently also introduced a pay model for PSN and simply called in PSN+ or whatever.
Xbox live is a dedicated gaming network. Meaning you pay for the service that it renders.
Go google PSN fails and look at how often PSN is either down or has some other problem. The do the same with Xbox live.
Updates via Xbox lives are alot faster than on PSN. Updating Uncharted 2 took me nearly an hour while updating the original gears of war took less than 2 minutes. PSN update also take forever to download where as Xbox live update take as little as half an hour with a 512 line. So because you pay for live it run on a infrastucture that is paid for by you.
I have not used PSN often and I can't say that when I have its been a pleasant experience.
Last edited:
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
can i just ask... WTF? In my, oh so humble opinion, Xbox live has some of the best online multiplayer.
Sockmonkey
New member
Cant find the link right now, we also pay to get some exclusive deals like early access to DLC,demos etc. As omega has pointed out its mainly to maintain a high quality online service infrastructure.
Inevitability
New member
that was with respect to the fact that i need to pay. again. for something i already paid for.
i can't comment on the quality cos i can't get past that fact that i have to pay.
Sony is a huge company. PS3 is a huge product and the QoS delivered on PSN must surely be a huge thing at Sony.
Yet they still offer it for free.
I love my XB360... before i bought it, the last thing I'd played games on was my AMD3000 with a GeForce6600 so going from that to the XB360 is crazy.
I just think that M$ is laughing all the way to the bank simply cos there are not enough people who question these sorts of things continuously.
I'm a cheapskate, i admit it (as if it wasn't already obvious), so i'm always questioning what i pay for and why.
Strifehart
New member
Simple. MS charge you $60 cause they know you will pay it.
Fact of the matter is that all the additional "features" included in the live GOLD service is simply icing on top of the cake. The cake being "multiplayer gaming". However, if they go and make MP gaming free, then most people would not bother subscribing to the GOLD service.
Xbox LIVE is definitely a much more sophisticated service, from start to finish, in comparison to the PSN. That's a fact. However, the fact that they are charging you to play multiplayer games (which are predominantly peer 2 peer) is batshit insane.
Steam doesn't charge you the play P2P titles. PSN doesn't charge you. What makes Live so special?
@Omega: I don't think you've spent enough time using the PSN to actually make a counter/contribution to the "argument". The fact that you keep mentioning the PSN+ service every time the topic is discussed just illustrates the fact that you either don't understand why people are up in arms about Live's subscription cost or you don't understand what the PSN+ is as a service.
At the end of the day, I can understand paying a subscription fee if the games we were playing were predominantly on dedicated servers. (think along the lines of World of Warcraft).
However, considering that there's no "cost" to them apart from the initial interconnect between the relevant users, I don't see WHY they can justify forcing a $60 premium (with a straight face even) on someone just because they would like to play online.
There's ways and means around everything. If you simply want to play against other players in the world and you couldn't be bothered paying the $60 a year for live, then have a look at something like XLINK KAI. It's tunneling software which allows you to connect to other XLINK KAI users all over the world and play games (as long as the games have local NETWORK play and not just online play).
I used it exclusively back in the day when I still played on my Xbox1 as I couldn't be bothered paying for a LIVE subscription back then.
I play on both the PSN and LIVE quite often. From a multiplayer/matchmaking perspective there is very little that separates the two at this point.
Fact of the matter is that all the additional "features" included in the live GOLD service is simply icing on top of the cake. The cake being "multiplayer gaming". However, if they go and make MP gaming free, then most people would not bother subscribing to the GOLD service.
Xbox LIVE is definitely a much more sophisticated service, from start to finish, in comparison to the PSN. That's a fact. However, the fact that they are charging you to play multiplayer games (which are predominantly peer 2 peer) is batshit insane.
Steam doesn't charge you the play P2P titles. PSN doesn't charge you. What makes Live so special?
@Omega: I don't think you've spent enough time using the PSN to actually make a counter/contribution to the "argument". The fact that you keep mentioning the PSN+ service every time the topic is discussed just illustrates the fact that you either don't understand why people are up in arms about Live's subscription cost or you don't understand what the PSN+ is as a service.
At the end of the day, I can understand paying a subscription fee if the games we were playing were predominantly on dedicated servers. (think along the lines of World of Warcraft).
However, considering that there's no "cost" to them apart from the initial interconnect between the relevant users, I don't see WHY they can justify forcing a $60 premium (with a straight face even) on someone just because they would like to play online.
There's ways and means around everything. If you simply want to play against other players in the world and you couldn't be bothered paying the $60 a year for live, then have a look at something like XLINK KAI. It's tunneling software which allows you to connect to other XLINK KAI users all over the world and play games (as long as the games have local NETWORK play and not just online play).
I used it exclusively back in the day when I still played on my Xbox1 as I couldn't be bothered paying for a LIVE subscription back then.
I play on both the PSN and LIVE quite often. From a multiplayer/matchmaking perspective there is very little that separates the two at this point.
Last edited:
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
U know what you get when a whore gives you free sex... an STD.
But paying for that you can get a classy escort who wont give u an STD.
Like i always tell people when these kind of discussions come up. MS is a bussiness. They are in it for the money, not to make you or me or even sock over there happy. They don't force u to use it, its ur choice. if you dont want to fine, nobody will thing much less of you (ok maybe some will). Fact is i use to think the same, got live and haven't looked back since.
Inevitability
New member
and that's where we get to the my point... some day i may pay for XBL when the itch is too hard to resist. But i will fight every second to keep alive the subject in the "public eye"
People should be questioning this, and then questioning it again the next day, and the day after.
Yes, you could easily tell me to go jump off a tall building and buy a PS3 if I'm so violently against the XBL model, but that's not the point... I want people to know that M$ is screwing us over, and i want M$ to know that WE know they're screwing us over.
Inevitability
New member
I understand the counter argument. It makes alot of sense, but lemme ask you...
If 50% of people didint renew their XBL subscriptions in protest against the fact that you have to pay (yes, i am an idealist and this sort of thing will never happen in the real world) do you think M$ will sit up and take notice?
Yes, they are a business, but a business will always only ever succeed on a supply-and-demand basis.
Like the other people have said above... it's is because people are willing to pay, that it continues to be a chargeable service.
Strifehart
New member
Just for the lols.
I think you just countered the point you were trying to make.
Problem is most people simply won't. I was DEAD SET to NOT renew my subscription, but like any addict I need my fix. I can't play Reach or Gears on the PS3 so I will simply have to breathe deeply and take it like a man... i.e. up the ass.
Last edited:
Inevitability
New member
Ya... sad but true.
Guess i'll have to file this one under "This is the real world, so deal with it"
...along with "Mass Effect 2 was a shooter dressed up as an RPG" and "Hitman-style games are dying"
but now i'm just ranting
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
See im the oppisate, im a realist. Could it be free, sure why not. Should it be... well no i dont think so. Why i think that is hard to explain.
The why pay for it if i can get it free agrument is the same argument that fuels piracy or theft for that matter. Why spend R150 on a new DVD when I can download it free from Piratebay?
I pay for live and as a result i get a pleasant, hassle free, gaming (online) experience. What does MS do with that $1Billion it made of Live subs? Develope the next xbox, pump money into R&D for things like Kinect, develope a Win7 Phone....
Like Strife pointed out I am waaaaay to ignorant of the PSN services to really be able to comment on it. But what I have used and have experience did not live up to my experiences on Xbox Live. Thus I am bias toward Live.
Just for the lols.
I think you just countered the point you were trying to make.
I conceed. That point is now mute.
Inevitability
New member
I'm comparing it against it's very legal competitor (i.e PSN)
I'm sure Sony also spends much money on R&D etc etc
And, if you truly compare the best M$ games (Forza etc) with the best Sony games (Gran Turismo, Uncharted etc), only the fanboys will be able to tell you one is significantly better than the other
Strifehart
New member
Well Forza 3 exists and GT5 barely exists (only went gold recently) so in that respect Forza 3 is a much better product.
/stir
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Neither Forza nor GT was made by MS or Sony. They where created by an inhouse developer. And this isn't about comparing the games yet again.
Another decent article on the subject: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/Microsoft-Sony-PSN-XBL-Numbers,news-5830.html
Inevitability
New member
Observation #1:
If someone is paying $60 a year for the XBL subscription, you can be sure they're gonna make use of it.
Observation#2:
PSN users are doing quite well... almost a 1-to-1 sign-up rate.
33% of XB360 users (like myself) are unwilling to be held to ransom
My apologies for the uninformed comments about the games, i only brought it up cos of your point regarding R&D and the use of the money that M$ extorts for XBL
If someone is paying $60 a year for the XBL subscription, you can be sure they're gonna make use of it.
Observation#2:
PSN users are doing quite well... almost a 1-to-1 sign-up rate.
33% of XB360 users (like myself) are unwilling to be held to ransom
My apologies for the uninformed comments about the games, i only brought it up cos of your point regarding R&D and the use of the money that M$ extorts for XBL
Last edited:
Toxin
New member
My 2c.
PSN is slow. Like terribly slow, even on my 4MB line. PSN updates take forever and a day.
Xbox Live is soooooo much faster.
IMO, for that reason alone Xbox Live is better. But other than that there's not much difference that I've seen. If you're willing to wait eons for your game to update then either way is fine.
PSN is slow. Like terribly slow, even on my 4MB line. PSN updates take forever and a day.
Xbox Live is soooooo much faster.
IMO, for that reason alone Xbox Live is better. But other than that there's not much difference that I've seen. If you're willing to wait eons for your game to update then either way is fine.