Well, really, why won't they allow you to play just straight multiplayer for free? I don't give a damn about achievements, messaging others during games (which you can do on the PS3), and inviting others to games (which you can also do on the PS3 in a certain way). You already pay your ISP (or your parents do) for internet access. Why play more for multi? This isn't an MMOG.
I hate it when Microsoft gloats about their games; most of which are multi-platform. That means I can buy a multi-platform game for the PS3 and play online for free. Both Live and PSN have the same exact core setup in the game (quick match, custom matches, leaderboards, etc.) So why pay for one and not the other when both are the same? This is why I don't buy 360 games much anymore and I exclusively buy multi-platform games on the PS3.
I know most kids have the time to make the approximately $15.00/month fee worth their time, but I don't. I only have time for maybe a couple of games a month. Why should I pay for something that I may never use when I can have free multiplayer and not worry about a subscription running out?
So, why does Microsoft charge an absurd multiplayer fee. Live is riddled with ads, so you'd think that they would make enough money from them (PSN is ad-free until you get to the store, and even then is Sony PS3-only stuff). Plus, their consoles are cheap and have a high fail rate. Having an RROD 2 or 3 times is not unheard of. So why won't they pull more customers in and make Live free?
It's absurd that Microsoft cares more about money than quality. Then again, this is Capitalism.
EDIT: This may belong in Console General Yib-Yab (Off Topic). Dunno, but it's the mod's call.
I've also wondered about the monthly fees people pay for XBL when there's the ads. Maybe Microsoft needs the money to make up for all those anti-trust rulings :lol:
but see that's $50 a year i don't have to pay, and i get the same quality of service, if not better cus if i recall around December or January XBL was down and i have always had service with my ps2/ps3 service.
but see that's $50 a year i don't have to pay, and i get the same quality of service, if not better cus if i recall around December or January XBL was down and i have always had service with my ps2/ps3 service.
Fifty bucks is chicken feed, and although you might have better service with psn, you can't play that many good games on it. Just how I see it.
no because they are a buisness and the more money a buisness can pull in the better
Yep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octovon
I've also wondered about the monthly fees people pay for XBL when there's the ads. Maybe Microsoft needs the money to make up for all those anti-trust rulings :lol:
Lol yep. I though of that myself after their recent $1.3 billion dollar fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Day_Man
I'm okay with it. It's a yearly payment of fifty dollars, which is less than most games nowadays cost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mad Cat MkII
but see that's $50 a year i don't have to pay, and i get the same quality of service, if not better cus if i recall around December or January XBL was down and i have always had service with my ps2/ps3 service.
I've had both and the multiplayer experience is the same. There are little perks with Live, but possibly not enough to make people pay for the service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billz1282
Bill Gates is a money grubbing whore.
Yep
Quote:
Xbox 360 has good games though.
Deal with it.
Nope. The majority of 360 games I know of are multi-platform like I said before, which means all you need to do is buy it on the PS3 and you circumvent the XBL fee. That's what I do.
The only downside is that PS3s are more expensive, but you get what you pay for. 360s have an extremely high fail rate vs PS3s and Wiis (which also charge an online fee for their internet service, so I should look into that). According to an article I just googled, 1 in 3 360s fail vs 1 in 100 PS3s and Wiis, but there are more articles that support these numbers.
I have a PS3 and a 360, but I'm almost afraid to play on my 360 now because it will RROD. I've had 2 instances and my brother has had 3. Microsoft is losing money like crazy for unfair service and a crappy console, and they still expect you to pay for their service. I guess the only reason now is so that they don't go broke.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Day_Man
Fifty bucks is chicken feed, and although you might have better service with psn, you can't play that many good games on it. Just how I see it.
True, but the 2 best games I've seen for the 360 are Crackdown and Gears of War.
And, to me, $50.00/year isn't chicken feed. I rarely play online games, but I desire to play GoW and maybe Halo 3 online, but to play I have to play the XBL fee. So, multiplayer games for me are dollars and hour and not cents, and this is what ruffles my feathers. I'm pretty sure Microsoft thought of this but didn't give a rat's ass.
I would not mind if they changed the Live fee to a one-time fee, even if the price went up, because that means that I do not have to worry about wasting 90% of my subscription time. This will never happen, but it would be nice if it did. I can't win a battle trying to suggest the idea to them because too many gamers are content with the current system, so I would have little if any support.
Microsoft reminds me of the Standard Oil Company of the early 20th century (I'm probably wrong on this). I don't mind the entire company, but I do mind their business practice of supporting and bragging about a defective console and making you pay an fee to play online that isn't necessary.
This site is part of the Defy Media Gaming network
The best serving of video game culture, since 2001. Whether you're looking for news, reviews, walkthroughs, or the biggest collection of PC gaming files on the planet, Game Front has you covered. We also make no illusions about gaming: it's supposed to be fun. Browse gaming galleries, humor lists, and honest, short-form reporting. Game on!
Why won't they make X-box Live free? 
Re: Why won't they make X-box Live free? 
Linear Mode
