The Future of XBL - A discussion on legitimizing XBL fees for next gen

  • 189 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -

Good day gentlemen... I offer you today a question steeped in possibility and ask for your receptiveness in return... TL;DR edition on bottom of post.

Xbox Live Fees and the future of the SERVICE.

xbl

So I think as any sensible gamer would agree (fanboys and haters can stop reading here and return to your cave), Xbox live carries a wealth of pro's and con's, like any service, and this coming generation will be a study in how Microsoft, a software company, plans to keep what they do best on top of the heap, given pressure from the competition. The burning question on everyone's mind is, how will microsoft continue their highly lucritive service's growth and expansion with what is becoming an even playing field in the online world,? Just a couple of the Pro's and Con's

Pro-

  • Feature rich (even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more features.)
  • Highly populated and almost guaranteed to be the spot with the highest community of players
  • Some really great deals at certain times of the calander year (I saved my XBL Gold fee alone between xmas and new years this year in discounts)
  • A closed and secure network by comparison.

Con-

  • Fee (usually ranging between 30 and 60 dollars for a year subscription, I personally have never payed more than $45)
  • Because of the fee, it logically brings into question whether a pay service is nessecery when the other services are free and nearly comperable.

So how will Microsoft advance XBL and at the same time retain the yearly fee in a compelling way? Especially with a public that will see services as nearly equal over the next generation (yes of course baring new services etc.)

The way I see it, it's in either one of two (maybe both) ways...

Microsoft will either blow up social connectivity in some new and streamlined way that is a few steps ahead of the competition. Something so fluid and easy that it actually changes our interaction with multiplayer/co-op gaming... ( I think if this were the case we'd have at least a glimmer of what it is)

or

Microsoft will begin an initiative to actually have anywhere access to ALL of your games on any windows based device... Imagine, included in your Gold fee, the ability to anywhere stream your games to your pc, tablet, phone etc all under the Microsoft umbrella and at no extra cost. You'd still be on XBOX live on these devices, of course, but you'd essentially have your library anywhere...

:P Ramifications to our prescious metagame :P

Simply, Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo don't care about our metagame. They want people invested moniterily to their service and consistently feeding their machine. We will of course fight over how to catagorize an exclusive and multiplat, but eventually we will settle on what falls under certain services as dictating what is exclusive and not... many will resist this, causing civil war. The words "jelly" and "butthurt" will be used as bullets in the war, making us look even more stupid than we already do...

The TL:DR edition...

In order for microsoft to continue charging upwards of $60 a year for XBL, they will tie in an anywhere streaming service into xbox live that gives gold members access to their entire library on any windows capable device... it will be a slow transition, but by 2-3 years into the next generation, people will be all over it. This will in effect legitimize the $60 fee and give microsoft an opportunity to lead another generation in console onine services...


And to the neigh-sayers... I see sony doing the exact same thing if MS does. Sony will use Gaikai and YES, they will charge a fee for using the "ANYWHERE" service... Nintendo? They are the wild card... I never know what they are thinking.

I believe that this will be a terifying but nessecery step for microsoft that they will be leaning on PC saturation for an ability to sell this service and their windows phones and surface to show what they will be capable of (very similar to sony pushing bluray at the beginning of last gen). It will be slow at first but the benefits will win out in the end and ultimately become a success... My personal belief. Gaming will be with you everywhere... Dedicated gaming machine will wander off into the woods like an old cat going to die...

What say you System Wars...

#2 Posted by SaltyMeatballs (25150 posts) -
Should be free, or a fraction of the price. XBL fees = license to print money
#3 Posted by finalstar2007 (24883 posts) -

Hopefully the fees increase to $99 per year :D

plz do it Microsoft

#4 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
Should be free, or a fraction of the price. XBL fees = license to print moneySaltyMeatballs
I think if MS goes into the next gen satisfied with the service they currently have (which don't get me wrong is very good) they will not be printing money much longer... I think this is going to be a generation that MS has to remind us WHY we spend $60 a year (or $45 like I do :P )
#5 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -

Hopefully the fees increase to $99 per year :D

plz do it Microsoft

finalstar2007
Nope, I think they will go with it as a no extra cost service to XBL customers... Likewise, I think sony's playstation plus program will do the same.
#6 Posted by Slashkice (13016 posts) -

Make online free, keep extra swag behind a paywall.

Problem solved.

#7 Posted by clyde46 (44088 posts) -
Ads on a paid service? No.
#8 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -

Make online free, keep extra swag behind a paywall.

Problem solved.

Slashkice
This is the logical solution for us as gamers, but for MS as a business, they dont want to subtract customers while giving more functionality, their goal is to get you to see that a $60 yearly fee is worth your money... thus ADDING new services to the existing ones.
#9 Posted by Malta_1980 (11161 posts) -

MS should do something like current PSN / PSN+ service...

For me if MS lets gamers play online for free while offering extra sevices for X amount of $ is fine...

#10 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"]Ads on a paid service? No.

ads? ads you say? Not sure I follow... I didn't mention ads :P
#11 Posted by clyde46 (44088 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="clyde46"]Ads on a paid service? No.

ads? ads you say? Not sure I follow... I didn't mention ads :P

Isnt that you pay MS for? To view ads on the dashboard?
#12 Posted by Bruce_Benzing (1742 posts) -

Offer a 3 tiered program: Silver for free for people that want to game only with chat, Gold for around the same adding a few features like early access, reduced DLC and games (like PS +) and Platinum which features all of the streaming and multimedia features minus the fees (e.g. have Netflix optimized but no monthly Netflix fees).

#13 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8530 posts) -

It should be free.

#14 Posted by Cheleman (7616 posts) -

It should be free.

GamerwillzPS
#15 Posted by freedomfreak (38770 posts) -
Just do it like Sony. Free online. Gold/PSN+ for extra features.
#16 Posted by Rocker6 (13358 posts) -

At this point, from a consumer's persepctive, I think XBL fees should be killed. Paying for XBL has been worth it by the time when PSN, competitior's network, was a mess, lacking consistency and many features. By now, Sony managed to shape PSN into something much better, still not quite as good as XBL, but fine enough to count the "It's free" as a noticeable advantage...

If things stay the same next gen, and Sony starts offering a decent and competitive service for free right from the start, MS really can't legitimize the fees anymore. That said, we need to be open to the possibility of Sony deciding to introduce the fees of their own, seeing how XBL brought lots and lots of revenue to MS...

Lastly, if they ask the consumers to pay premium for on-line access, they should at least keep the services ad-free. Usually, when you have a paid subscription to some Internet site, one of the advantages is no ads, as they're generally used as an attempt to slightly piss off the free users, and make them upgrade. Ads about the new system features and sale offers are fine, ads about McDonalds aren't...

#17 Posted by PCgameruk (1425 posts) -

Sony do it the best way. Free online but it you want extra content and some free games you can join a subscription.

That's fair. Chargeing people just to play games online that they bought is complete bollocks. But like i said all this gen, if idiots are going to pay for it why would M$ care?

#18 Posted by TheDidact (3981 posts) -
What I want them to do: Silver (Free): Everything it has now Online Multiplayer Access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, etc Gold ($59.99): Party Chat At least one free game every week Releases a few days/one week earlier Frequent Discounts and Sales Exclusive Betas The ability to preorder full games off of XBL and receive preorder bonuses One hour trials The ability to actually pay money to rent full games Achievements translated into MS Points (gives gamers the incentive to buy more games to earn more achievements) Everything from Silver Platinum ($99.99) Full TV Package with recording along with free 3 months of HBO, Starz, Encore, and Cinimax (the latter only comes with a 12 month subscription) Everything from Gold
#19 Posted by jdc6305 (3791 posts) -

I have both PSN and Live. I didn't pay for live I got a free 30 day trial with my Xbox. I live is extreemly overrated. I get kicked from games and more lag on live then I have on PSN.

#20 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="clyde46"][QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="clyde46"]Ads on a paid service? No.

ads? ads you say? Not sure I follow... I didn't mention ads :P

Isnt that you pay MS for? To view ads on the dashboard?

Damn it dont let the secret out! Ads are the crack of the industry... just cant get enough.
#21 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheDidact"]What I want them to do: Silver (Free): Everything it has now Online Multiplayer Access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, etc Gold ($59.99): Party Chat At least one free game every week Releases a few days/one week earlier Frequent Discounts and Sales Exclusive Betas The ability to preorder full games off of XBL and receive preorder bonuses One hour trials The ability to actually pay money to rent full games Achievements translated into MS Points (gives gamers the incentive to buy more games to earn more achievements) Everything from Silver Platinum ($99.99) Full TV Package with recording along with free 3 months of HBO, Starz, Encore, and Cinimax (the latter only comes with a 12 month subscription) Everything from Gold

being a non cable subscriber, Id buy that platinum deal in a heartbeat... Somtimes I miss current tv/news. Although my wife and I do very good for ourselves financially, Im done paying for cable...
#22 Posted by rjdofu (9170 posts) -

[QUOTE="Slashkice"]

Make online free, keep extra swag behind a paywall.

Problem solved.

TheEroica

This is the logical solution for us as gamers, but for MS as a business, they dont want to subtract customers while giving more functionality, their goal is to get you to see that a $60 yearly fee is worth your money... thus ADDING new services to the existing ones.

We are customers, who gives a fvck about them and their greedy freaking business tactics. Of course we know that MS want their money, but we don't have to legitimize it by any mean. Steam & PSN has proven that you don't need to charge fee to give a functional online service. There's no legitimate reason why Microsoft can charge for the basic online function like multiplayer & other paid services.

Sure they can charge whatever the hell they want with it, but keep it separate, extra stuff = pay; basic stuff = free. Let those who just want to game online to have a choice. You don't go to a restaurant & order a steak just to know that the steak can only be served with foie gras.

#23 Posted by Eddie-Vedder (7776 posts) -

PSN+ sh1ts on Xbox Live Gold so hard it's a total joke.

Normal PSN sh1ts on Xbox Live Gold, but even if we compare paid service for paid service PSN+ is lightyears ahead of XBL.

#24 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="Malta_1980"]

It should be free.

GamerwillzPS
[QUOTE="freedomfreak"]Just do it like Sony. Free online. Gold/PSN+ for extra features.

Sony do it the best way. Free online but it you want extra content and some free games you can join a subscription.

That's fair. Chargeing people just to play games online that they bought is complete bollocks. But like i said all this gen, if idiots are going to pay for it why would M$ care?

PCgameruk
I CERTAINLY agree with you guys... as stated above when I said, the public will eventually see the services as equal except one has a fat fee... I just don't think that MS will see it this way. I think they'll stick to their guns and just try and give an experience that makes it unique to the others... As gamers, we say, make it free and give me online MP... as a lucrative business model, I doubt MS has interest in that...
#25 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -

[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="Slashkice"]

Make online free, keep extra swag behind a paywall.

Problem solved.

rjdofu

This is the logical solution for us as gamers, but for MS as a business, they dont want to subtract customers while giving more functionality, their goal is to get you to see that a $60 yearly fee is worth your money... thus ADDING new services to the existing ones.

We are customers, who gives a fvck about them and their greedy freaking business tactics. Of course we know that MS want their money, but we don't have to legitimize it by any mean. Steam & PSN has proven that you don't need to charge fee to give a functional online service. There's no legitimate reason why Microsoft can charge for the basic online function like multiplayer & other paid services.

Sure they can charge whatever the hell they want with it, but keep it separate, extra stuff = pay; basic stuff = free. Let those who just want to game online to have a choice. You don't go to a restaurant & order a steak just to know that the steak can only be served with foie gras.

But if they gave you an ability to have your games with you EVERYWHERE to pick up and play whenever you wish at $4 a month, would that justify it?
#26 Posted by Bruce_Benzing (1742 posts) -

PSN+ sh1ts on Xbox Live Gold so hard it's a total joke.

Normal PSN sh1ts on Xbox Live Gold, but even if we compare paid service for paid service PSN+ is lightyears ahead of XBL.

Eddie-Vedder

Anyone with an IQ above 70 sh!ts on you......

#27 Posted by OneInchMan99 (1127 posts) -

I don't care how many services Microsoft put into Xboxlive,as long as they keep charging people to play the multiplayer content on their games I will not be owning one of the consoles,its ridiculous.

#28 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -

PSN+ sh1ts on Xbox Live Gold so hard it's a total joke.

Normal PSN sh1ts on Xbox Live Gold, but even if we compare paid service for paid service PSN+ is lightyears ahead of XBL.

Eddie-Vedder

Eddie Vedder

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! we're discussing, not hating eachother on the sabbath...

#29 Posted by TheDidact (3981 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="TheDidact"]What I want them to do: Silver (Free): Everything it has now Online Multiplayer Access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, etc Gold ($59.99): Party Chat At least one free game every week Releases a few days/one week earlier Frequent Discounts and Sales Exclusive Betas The ability to preorder full games off of XBL and receive preorder bonuses One hour trials The ability to actually pay money to rent full games Achievements translated into MS Points (gives gamers the incentive to buy more games to earn more achievements) Everything from Silver Platinum ($99.99) Full TV Package with recording along with free 3 months of HBO, Starz, Encore, and Cinimax (the latter only comes with a 12 month subscription) Everything from Gold

being a non cable subscriber, Id buy that platinum deal in a heartbeat... Somtimes I miss current tv/news. Although my wife and I do very good for ourselves financially, Im done paying for cable...

Yep that's the point of it. They can make a ton of money back from making MP free with these options plus they'll turn the 720 into the ultimate entertainment box.
#30 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more featuresTheEroica
Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.
#31 Posted by clone01 (24402 posts) -

Make online free, keep extra swag behind a paywall.

Problem solved.

Slashkice
Yep, I think that woul be a good solution.
#32 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheDidact"][QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="TheDidact"]What I want them to do: Silver (Free): Everything it has now Online Multiplayer Access to Netflix, Hulu Plus, etc Gold ($59.99): Party Chat At least one free game every week Releases a few days/one week earlier Frequent Discounts and Sales Exclusive Betas The ability to preorder full games off of XBL and receive preorder bonuses One hour trials The ability to actually pay money to rent full games Achievements translated into MS Points (gives gamers the incentive to buy more games to earn more achievements) Everything from Silver Platinum ($99.99) Full TV Package with recording along with free 3 months of HBO, Starz, Encore, and Cinimax (the latter only comes with a 12 month subscription) Everything from Gold

being a non cable subscriber, Id buy that platinum deal in a heartbeat... Somtimes I miss current tv/news. Although my wife and I do very good for ourselves financially, Im done paying for cable...

Yep that's the point of it. They can make a ton of money back from making MP free with these options plus they'll turn the 720 into the ultimate entertainment box.

Thing is, I think the tv companys (barring any long term contracts the have with cable) would probably love this idea too... They must know by now that the cable business model is not going to last another ten years, maybe 5... people are destination watchers now, surfing is drying up.
#33 Posted by Bruce_Benzing (1742 posts) -

[QUOTE="TheEroica"]even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more featureskuraimen
Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.

Hey, Shadows is a pretty cool game. I bought it yesterday...

#34 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="TheEroica"]even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more featuresBruce_Benzing

Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.

Hey, Shadows is a pretty cool game. I bought it yesterday...

Told ya.
#35 Posted by rjdofu (9170 posts) -
[QUOTE="rjdofu"]

[QUOTE="TheEroica"] This is the logical solution for us as gamers, but for MS as a business, they dont want to subtract customers while giving more functionality, their goal is to get you to see that a $60 yearly fee is worth your money... thus ADDING new services to the existing ones.TheEroica

We are customers, who gives a fvck about them and their greedy freaking business tactics. Of course we know that MS want their money, but we don't have to legitimize it by any mean. Steam & PSN has proven that you don't need to charge fee to give a functional online service. There's no legitimate reason why Microsoft can charge for the basic online function like multiplayer & other paid services.

Sure they can charge whatever the hell they want with it, but keep it separate, extra stuff = pay; basic stuff = free. Let those who just want to game online to have a choice. You don't go to a restaurant & order a steak just to know that the steak can only be served with foie gras.

But if they gave you an ability to have your games with you EVERYWHERE to pick up and play whenever you wish at $4 a month, would that justify it?

That idea sounds good to me. Though I'm curious how it could be executed, is the device (xbox) have to be always on to stream games or not? Or is that something like onlive? Either way, it still depends mostly on user connection instead of MS's end; hence, not very good at the moment. I can see the idea to be more applicable in the future 5-6 years. That being said, I can't say the same for everyone else. Some people might not need that feature, and to be forced to pay for a feature that you don't use often is not a good deal. You cannot satisfy everyone's need. That's why I think everything should be separate.
#36 Posted by spiderluck (2376 posts) -

Hmm I like your idea of accessibility across all windows 8 devices but wonder if this would be enough to legitimise the fee across a wide enough spectrum of their user base...I think they shoulld implement free access to online to every new buyer and offer a gold membership that would allow access to all of your windows 8 devices plus offer a card somewhat like Costco that would give you a flat rate discount at retail [ 10% ?] for all MS gaming products ie: controllers, games, AR glasses including all digital downloads etc, etc...by entering the product code number in your Live account it would keep a running total of your savings throughout the year...MS could fairly easily get their partners at retail or digital providers to accept a lower return in exchange for greater volume..Thereby maintaining their profit ratio on top of having a group of evangelisers who could easily demonstrate their level of savings due to their Gold membership.............Or something like that.....lol

#37 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheEroica"]even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more featureskuraimen
Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.

I've decided to dislike you no longer Kurimen... I find your lack of reasonable and objective thought to be disappointing in a forum that survives by an ability to discuss gaming. You can sling mud all you want, but I have no interest any longer. I consider the lack of Party/cross game chat and the unfortunate amount of constant updates to be aspects of the playstation experience that drag it down, but opinion is opinion.
#38 Posted by rjdofu (9170 posts) -
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="TheEroica"]even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more featuresTheEroica
Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.

I've decided to dislike you no longer Kurimen... I find your lack of reasonable and objective thought to be disappointing in a forum that survives by an ability to discuss gaming. You can sling mud all you want, but I have no interest any longer. I consider the lack of Party/cross game chat and the unfortunate amount of constant updates to be aspects of the playstation experience that drag it down, but opinion is opinion.

That's not opinion, mate. :)
#39 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="rjdofu"] We are customers, who gives a fvck about them and their greedy freaking business tactics. Of course we know that MS want their money, but we don't have to legitimize it by any mean. Steam & PSN has proven that you don't need to charge fee to give a functional online service. There's no legitimate reason why Microsoft can charge for the basic online function like multiplayer & other paid services.

Sure they can charge whatever the hell they want with it, but keep it separate, extra stuff = pay; basic stuff = free. Let those who just want to game online to have a choice. You don't go to a restaurant & order a steak just to know that the steak can only be served with foie gras.

rjdofu
But if they gave you an ability to have your games with you EVERYWHERE to pick up and play whenever you wish at $4 a month, would that justify it?

That idea sounds good to me. Though I'm curious how it could be executed, is the device (xbox) have to be always on to stream games or not? Or is that something like onlive? Either way, it still depends mostly on user connection instead of MS's end; hence, not very good at the moment. I can see the idea to be more applicable in the future 5-6 years. That being said, I can't say the same for everyone else. Some people might not need that feature, and to be forced to pay for a feature that you don't use often is not a good deal. You cannot satisfy everyone's need. That's why I think everything should be separate.

yeah, the separate everything price model would be ideal for our world of private experiences tuned to our liking... Its one reason why I believe the ps3 struggled so badly out of the gate... it was feature rich HD gaming in a world that hadn't embraced HD tvs yet... where MS was offering everything as seperate peices to satisfy wherever you were at the time. if you remember back to 2006, HD tvs were not NEARLY as saturated into the market as they are now and Sony was forcing a blu ray player into the home which has zero benefit on an SD tv. Either way, I totaly agree about the tech side of it and I shouldve put it in my op, but if the tech isnt there they should NOT, I repeat NOT do it.
#40 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -

Hmm I like your idea of accessibility across all windows 8 devices but wonder if this would be enough to legitimise the fee across a wide enough spectrum of their user base...I think they shoulld implement free access to online to every new buyer and offer a gold membership that would allow access to all of your windows 8 devices plus offer a card somewhat like Costco that would give you a flat rate discount at retail [ 10% ?] for all MS gaming products ie: controllers, games, AR glasses including all digital downloads etc, etc...by entering the product code number in your Live account it would keep a running total of your savings throughout the year...MS could fairly easily get their partners at retail or digital providers to accept a lower return in exchange for greater volume..Thereby maintaining their profit ratio on top of having a group of evangelisers who could easily demonstrate their level of savings due to their Gold membership.............Or something like that.....lol

spiderluck
Id go in on that... yeah. Its tough, because Im sure MS sees that the competition is using a free MP service and it isn't good business to give something for nothing... Im curious to see how clever MS will be with coming up with a way to retain customers and continue growth knowing that giving up on paid MP is probably a reality at some point.
#41 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -
[QUOTE="rjdofu"][QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.

I've decided to dislike you no longer Kurimen... I find your lack of reasonable and objective thought to be disappointing in a forum that survives by an ability to discuss gaming. You can sling mud all you want, but I have no interest any longer. I consider the lack of Party/cross game chat and the unfortunate amount of constant updates to be aspects of the playstation experience that drag it down, but opinion is opinion.

That's not opinion, mate. :)

:lol:
#42 Posted by APiranhaAteMyVa (2862 posts) -

Pro-

  • Feature rich (even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more features.)
  • Highly populated and almost guaranteed to be the spot with the highest community of players
  • Some really great deals at certain times of the calander year (I saved my XBL Gold fee alone between xmas and new years this year in discounts)
  • A closed and secure network by comparison.

TheEroica

These pros are ridiculous:

The first one what about it is feature rich? Browser is better on WiiU, netflix is better on PS3, you get TVii on WiiU, the only thing really separating it is cross game chat and invites, they are pretty much a guarantee on PS4 next gen so the point will be moot.

Highly populated has nothing to do with the fee, the 360 came out with a solid online infrastructure first (on consoles) so it took off well, no guarantee the 720 will have the same amount again. Also so many console games die quickly unless it is Halo, Gears, Fifa, Madden or COD. PC is much better in that regard, with games developing smaller but more dedicated communities that can last a decade.

Deals compared to Steam are terrible, and PS+ has some great deals probably better than 360 really. Sonys network really isn't all that bad after they messed up that one time, they have fixed it up for the most part now, and I doubt it will happen again. I haven't heard of any problems with Nintendos network, and PC is PC, usually depends on the user/dedicated servers.

The fees really aren't justifiable any more, what worked in the past no longer works as there is no reason other than that they can get away with it.

#43 Posted by APiranhaAteMyVa (2862 posts) -
I dun broke it
#44 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="TheEroica"]even if only slightly more than the competition, still has more featuresTheEroica
Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.

I've decided to dislike you no longer Kurimen... I find your lack of reasonable and objective thought to be disappointing in a forum that survives by an ability to discuss gaming. You can sling mud all you want, but I have no interest any longer. I consider the lack of Party/cross game chat and the unfortunate amount of constant updates to be aspects of the playstation experience that drag it down, but opinion is opinion.

You're arguing in SW pal don't flatter yourself. And I'm just pointing your own lack of reason and objectivity.
#45 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -

Now the thread is broken just like TC's arguments.

#46 Posted by spiderluck (2376 posts) -

Holy fvck ...that is one big horse you are sitting on there Kuraimen

#47 Posted by TheDidact (3981 posts) -
Another thing that needs to be done is to make XBL more OPEN!!! Seriously. The only reason GabeN went with PS3 is because XBL is soooo closed off for devs, including things such as very high patch rates and limits on free DLC. Hell, if MS opened up their service I bet the SteamBox wouldn't be happening and Portal 2 would never be on PS3.
#48 Posted by TheEroica (13241 posts) -

[QUOTE="TheEroica"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Lies! Live has features PSN doesn't have and PSN has features Live doesn't have. Live doesn't have "more". ITT: Another lem trying to justify getting ripped off.kuraimen
I've decided to dislike you no longer Kurimen... I find your lack of reasonable and objective thought to be disappointing in a forum that survives by an ability to discuss gaming. You can sling mud all you want, but I have no interest any longer. I consider the lack of Party/cross game chat and the unfortunate amount of constant updates to be aspects of the playstation experience that drag it down, but opinion is opinion.

You're arguing in SW pal don't flatter yourself. And I'm just pointing your own lack of reason and objectivity.

Evolve Kuri... Evolve.

#49 Posted by Pug-Nasty (8508 posts) -

I think if they want to get away with the fee next gen and not have all of their rational customers jump ship they will have to increase their online gaming quality control. This means they need to have a lock down on netcode and simultaneously not allow people with crap connections to play over Xbox Live.

It's baffling how much lag there is over Live in CoD. What's also baffling is how people are okay with that considering they pay for the online play. Sure, this is game to game, and other games don't have the same problem, but they need to make the lag minimal across the board.

#50 Posted by mems_1224 (46259 posts) -
Now that Sony finally took their head out of their ass they need to add more incentive to make the fee worth it if they're gonna keep charging everyone on the next xbox. I doubt XBL has the massive advantage it had most of the 7th gen when they launch their new consoles.