Charging for On-line Gameplay is ridiculous

On-line gaming has been free for many years on the PC, PS2, etc.

The Internet backbone as we've known it has been paid for about 1,000,000 times over with customers from around the world paying for monthly Internet bills.

So why is it that Microsoft has the conceit to put up toll booths on then Internet backbone and charge for On-line play?

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable, but that it not the case.

Most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues.

PlayStation 3's On-line is nearly identical, but it's free.

Microsoft is the only company that wants the milk the people for all its worth.

I'm not a fanboy. I love all the consoles. The 360 is still a great console with good games. I just think there is no reason to charge $50 a year for Xbox Live Gold.

It just goes to show you how low Microsoft will go.

Charging 11 dollars for batteries is rediculous.

XBL can charge you, I mean MS is a company and they need to make profit somewhere. Yeah it's better for it to be free, but what are you gonna do? Well...besides complain about it.

when you learn how to spell "rediculous" i will take you serious. 

While I don't agree with all your points, I'll defend to the death your right to say them.musicalmac

I love Family Guy!!

Here we go again. Another person that is cheap and does not know what the hell he's talking about.

I don't know if you noticed, but most of the multi platform games that came out for both consoles, PS3 had no online, but MS 360 did..

So I rather pay what, 4.19 a month for the best online game play.

Xbox live offers many things that aren't available on PSN, and i strongly belive it is worth the $4.16 a month

If you cannot afford roughly $5 a month, then you shouldn't be playing video games, you have larger issues to handle.hummer700

Its not the idea of $50 being too much money. That's not my argument, but if you feel its okay for companys to keep throwing in miscellaneous charges here and there and screwing you over, then you win.

[QUOTE="hummer700"]Xbox live offers many things that aren't available on PSN, and i strongly belive it is worth the $4.16 a month

If you cannot afford roughly $5 a month, then you shouldn't be playing video games, you have larger issues to handle.JohnWinger

Its not the idea of $50 being too much money. That's not my argument, but if you feel its okay for companys to keep throwing in miscellaneous charges here in there and screwing you over, then you win.

     So please name a service that both protects and faciltates a great gaming invironment with a " Sure we give that for FREE " label and real world ethics?

     Here is a clue - To date, the PSU on MS seems to be the only on-line game of the PSO franchise to be ligit for the most part - lol;) ie. Not yet hacked to the max !

[QUOTE="hummer700"]Xbox live offers many things that aren't available on PSN, and i strongly belive it is worth the $4.16 a month

If you cannot afford roughly $5 a month, then you shouldn't be playing video games, you have larger issues to handle.JohnWinger

Its not the idea of $50 being too much money. That's not my argument, but if you feel its okay for companys to keep throwing in miscellaneous charges here and there and screwing you over, then you win.

If those "miscellaneous" charges go toward features that are worthwhile, then it's totally ok.

when you learn how to spell "rediculous" i will take you serious.

 

 

phybaoptikz

No it actually is "Ridiculous".

On Topic: I don't have a problem paying for a decent online service. If it's stable and has good content then what's the problem? Sure free is nice but you shouldn't complain about paying a small fee for something like this. 

If Blizzard wants to charge for WOW, that's their perrogative.  they provide a great service and game.  If you don't like it, don't play.sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]If Blizzard wants to charge for WOW, that's their perrogative. they provide a great service and game. If you don't like it, don't play.Vandalvideo

On other platforms but not standard or required across the whole platform... that's the difference. 

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running.  (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.) 

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system.  Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality.  You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like  "PlayStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood.  Have you played 'most of the games?.'  I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

 The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies.  Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your preferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system.  TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users.  Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it.  You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, you should know that when the 360 launched, Live got dramatically better. 

Everyone wishes the things we want were free.  If Sony can deliver the same service free of charge, they should, but until they do, their service has to be free because nobody in their right mind would pay money for it's limited feature set.

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running.  (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.) 

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system.  Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality.  You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like  "layStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood.  Have you played 'most of the games?.'  I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

 The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PDR services offered by cable companies.  Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your prefferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system.  TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users.  Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it.  You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, but lemme' tell ya', when the 360 launched, Live got a whole lot better overnight. 

donalbane

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running.  (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.) 

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system.  Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality.  You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like  "layStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood.  Have you played 'most of the games?.'  I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

 The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies.  Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your prefferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system.  TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users.  Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it.  You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, but lemme' tell ya', when the 360 launched, Live got a whole lot better overnight. 

donalbane

also i quoted you because you act as if no other service can improve or over time. if you did own a 360 at launch you know xbl was not as good as it is today. but yah i guess short term memory can do that to you. alot of the stuff that xbl offers can be done free, you know and i know it.

 i dont own a ps3 yer (saturday i will) but i have played RFOM on a friends ps3 , and did play online. the lag i recieved is the same lag i would get from playing any game on xbl which is a little lag at times. but i stll pay for xbl , but i tihnk it can be done free also.

On-line gaming has been free for many years on the PC, PS2, etc.

The Internet backbone as we've known it has been paid for about 1,000,000 times over with customers from around the world paying for monthly Internet bills.

So why is it that Microsoft has the conceit to put up toll booths on then Internet backbone and charge for On-line play?

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable, but that it not the case.

Most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues.

PlayStation 3's On-line is nearly identical, but it's free.

Microsoft is the only company that wants the milk the people for all its worth.

I'm not a fanboy. I love all the consoles. The 360 is still a great console with good games. I just think there is no reason to charge $50 a year for Xbox Live Gold.

It just goes to show you how low Microsoft will go.

JohnWinger

On-line gaming has been free for many years on the PC, PS2, etc.

The Internet backbone as we've known it has been paid for about 1,000,000 times over with customers from around the world paying for monthly Internet bills.

So why is it that Microsoft has the conceit to put up toll booths on then Internet backbone and charge for On-line play?

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable, but that it not the case.

Most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues.

PlayStation 3's On-line is nearly identical, but it's free.

Microsoft is the only company that wants the milk the people for all its worth.

I'm not a fanboy. I love all the consoles. The 360 is still a great console with good games. I just think there is no reason to charge $50 a year for Xbox Live Gold.

It just goes to show you how low Microsoft will go.

JohnWinger

[QUOTE="phybaoptikz"]

when you learn how to spell "rediculous" i will take you serious.

 

 

covhunter

No it actually is "Ridiculous".

On Topic: I don't have a problem paying for a decent online service. If it's stable and has good content then what's the problem? Sure free is nice but you shouldn't complain about paying a small fee for something like this. 

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]If Blizzard wants to charge for WOW, that's their perrogative. they provide a great service and game. If you don't like it, don't play.VoodooHak

On other platforms but not standard or required across the whole platform... that's the difference. 

On-line gaming has been free for many years on the PC, PS2, etc.

The Internet backbone as we've known it has been paid for about 1,000,000 times over with customers from around the world paying for monthly Internet bills.

So why is it that Microsoft has the conceit to put up toll booths on then Internet backbone and charge for On-line play?

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable, but that it not the case.

Most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues.

PlayStation 3's On-line is nearly identical, but it's free.

Microsoft is the only company that wants the milk the people for all its worth.

I'm not a fanboy. I love all the consoles. The 360 is still a great console with good games. I just think there is no reason to charge $50 a year for Xbox Live Gold.

It just goes to show you how low Microsoft will go.

JohnWinger

Find me a more popular online console service that is cheaper than xbox live and I'll agree with you.  Until then, XBOX live is clearly doing what it needs to do to succeed.

[QUOTE="donalbane"]

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running.  (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.) 

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system.  Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality.  You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like  "layStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood.  Have you played 'most of the games?.'  I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

 The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies.  Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your prefferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system.  TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users.  Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it.  You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, but lemme' tell ya', when the 360 launched, Live got a whole lot better overnight. 

alfy13

also i quoted you because you act as if no other service can improve or over time. if you did own a 360 at launch you know xbl was not as good as it is today. but yah i guess short term memory can do that to you. alot of the stuff that xbl offers can be done free, you know and i know it.

 i dont own a ps3 yer (saturday i will) but i have played RFOM on a friends ps3 , and did play online. the lag i recieved is the same lag i would get from playing any game on xbl which is a little lag at times. but i stll pay for xbl , but i tihnk it can be done free also.

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running. (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.)

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system. Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality. You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like "PlayStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood. Have you played 'most of the games?.' I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies. Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your preferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system. TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users. Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it. You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, you should know that when the 360 launched, Live got dramatically better.

Everyone wishes the things we want were free. If Sony can deliver the same service free of charge, they should, but until they do, their service has to be free because nobody in their right mind would pay money for it's limited feature set.

donalbane

To add to that....

Building an infrastructure where the community can regulate itself is great.  But in the offchance we need extra moderation, we know for sure that there are people actively monitoring feedback.  One thing not specifically stated is the matchmaking system that uses rep, zone and ignore/prefer status to match you up.

We also know that XBL is a closed, secure network that actively checks for modded consoles.

Also consider XBL's connectivity to the web.  I like being able to log into my account on xbox.com to check my messages and see what my friends are up to. 

I like that MS has resources whose job is to specifically connect with the community.  Major Nelson, Trixie... and the support they give to fan sites.

With all that, the fee is well justified

On-line gaming has been free for many years on the PC, PS2, etc.

The Internet backbone as we've known it has been paid for about 1,000,000 times over with customers from around the world paying for monthly Internet bills.

So why is it that Microsoft has the conceit to put up toll booths on then Internet backbone and charge for On-line play?

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable, but that it not the case.

Most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues.

PlayStation 3's On-line is nearly identical, but it's free.

Microsoft is the only company that wants the milk the people for all its worth.

I'm not a fanboy. I love all the consoles. The 360 is still a great console with good games. I just think there is no reason to charge $50 a year for Xbox Live Gold.

It just goes to show you how low Microsoft will go.

JohnWinger

$50 a year isn't that bad...MMORPG's cost $180 or so a year.kittykatz5k

Neither is bad, telling you the truth. Playing a MMO is actually cheaper than buying 4 new games a year.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]If Blizzard wants to charge for WOW, that's their perrogative. they provide a great service and game. If you don't like it, don't play.Vandalvideo

On other platforms but not standard or required across the whole platform... that's the difference.

that's a matter of opinion.

When it comes to infrastructure of online gaming, I place standardization at a high premium.  Why?  Because I just want to put any game on a given platform into my disc tray and have it work.  And that's it.

Sure Xfire may come with new games, but is it a requirement?

The simple fact that you say "most" games use ventrillo is hardly a standard.  On the other hand, 360 games all support voice through the exact same service, all built into the games.... guaranteed. 

Again... when put in a brand new game, it should just work. 

[QUOTE="alfy13"][QUOTE="donalbane"]

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running.  (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.) 

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system.  Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality.  You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like  "layStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood.  Have you played 'most of the games?.'  I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

 The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies.  Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your prefferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system.  TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users.  Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it.  You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, but lemme' tell ya', when the 360 launched, Live got a whole lot better overnight. 

donalbane

also i quoted you because you act as if no other service can improve or over time. if you did own a 360 at launch you know xbl was not as good as it is today. but yah i guess short term memory can do that to you. alot of the stuff that xbl offers can be done free, you know and i know it.

 i dont own a ps3 yer (saturday i will) but i have played RFOM on a friends ps3 , and did play online. the lag i recieved is the same lag i would get from playing any game on xbl which is a little lag at times. but i stll pay for xbl , but i tihnk it can be done free also.

Look to me PSN has lots to improve but over the time psn has been out, you cant tell me that they havent done a good job improving their service which is still free.

I wish you let the fanboyism go man its not worth it. But being a pc gamer for 10yrs now and seeing what xbl offers for fee , should be free. will i contiunue paying for a gold account? the answer is yes but do i think i could be done free? yes .  do i think xbl is godly? the answer is no

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="alfy13"][QUOTE="donalbane"]

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running. (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.)

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system. Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality. You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like "layStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood. Have you played 'most of the games?.' I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies. Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your prefferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system. TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users. Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it. You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, but lemme' tell ya', when the 360 launched, Live got a whole lot better overnight.

alfy13

also i quoted you because you act as if no other service can improve or over time. if you did own a 360 at launch you know xbl was not as good as it is today. but yah i guess short term memory can do that to you. alot of the stuff that xbl offers can be done free, you know and i know it.

i dont own a ps3 yer (saturday i will) but i have played RFOM on a friends ps3 , and did play online. the lag i recieved is the same lag i would get from playing any game on xbl which is a little lag at times. but i stll pay for xbl , but i tihnk it can be done free also.

[QUOTE="kittykatz5k"]$50 a year isn't that bad...MMORPG's cost $180 or so a year.Redmoonxl2

Neither is bad, telling you the truth. Playing a MMO is actually cheaper than buying 4 new games a year.

[QUOTE="alfy13"][QUOTE="donalbane"]

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running. (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.)

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system. Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality. You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like "layStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood. Have you played 'most of the games?.' I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies. Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your prefferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system. TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users. Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it. You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, but lemme' tell ya', when the 360 launched, Live got a whole lot better overnight.

donalbane

also i quoted you because you act as if no other service can improve or over time. if you did own a 360 at launch you know xbl was not as good as it is today. but yah i guess short term memory can do that to you. alot of the stuff that xbl offers can be done free, you know and i know it.

i dont own a ps3 yer (saturday i will) but i have played RFOM on a friends ps3 , and did play online. the lag i recieved is the same lag i would get from playing any game on xbl which is a little lag at times. but i stll pay for xbl , but i tihnk it can be done free also.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="sonicare"]If Blizzard wants to charge for WOW, that's their perrogative. they provide a great service and game. If you don't like it, don't play.VoodooHak

On other platforms but not standard or required across the whole platform... that's the difference.

that's a matter of opinion.

When it comes to infrastructure of online gaming, I place standardization at a high premium.  Why?  Because I just want to put any game on a given platform into my disc tray and have it work.  And that's it.

Sure Xfire may come with new games, but is it a requirement?

The simple fact that you say "most" games use ventrillo is hardly a standard.  On the other hand, 360 games all support voice through the exact same service, all built into the games.... guaranteed. 

Again... when put in a brand new game, it should just work. 

[QUOTE="donalbane"][QUOTE="alfy13"][QUOTE="donalbane"]

If there was a real good reason such as Quality of Service, then it would be quite understandable.

The main thing Microsoft's system has over Sony's is the fact that the guide button allows you to bring up friends lists whenever you like, see what your pals are playing, and chat with them no matter what they're doing, and all of this can be accomplshed without exiting whichever app you are running.  (I wont even go into the ability to access custom soundtracks no matter what you're doing, or the fact that you can stream your music from your computer's sizable hard drive without copying over a single megabyte to your console.) 

Furthermore, there are 3 levels of screening out obnoxious people: The Zone system, the Feedback system, and the Reputation system.  Thanks to these marvelous features, I play with a greater percentage of like-minded players than any online service I have ever used, and I come from the PC gaming world which was in fact free, but inferior to Live in all other respects.

The service is of a higher quality.  You would know this if you had a Live account and a 360, which I'm assuming you don't because you make ridiculous claims like  "layStation 3's On-line is nearly identical,"which it's most certainly not, and "most of the games on Xbox Live have lag issues," which is another falshood.  Have you played 'most of the games?.'  I have, and aside from the occasional slowdown (typically resulting from a player with a crappy broadband connection,) there are practically no problems.

 The Live vs PSN paradigm is much like the difference between honest to goodness TiVo and the PVR services offered by cable companies.  Sure the cable companies offer you the ability to record shows, but for a fee TiVo adapts to your prefferences and recommends shows based on an elaborate feedback system.  TiVo service costs money ($13/month,) but is superior in most respects, and you never hear about disatisfied TiVo users.  Just like I can tell you don't have Live... if you did, you'd have nothing but nice things to say about it.  You may have had Live back in the Xbox days, and are basing these statements off of those experiences, but lemme' tell ya', when the 360 launched, Live got a whole lot better overnight. 

alfy13

also i quoted you because you act as if no other service can improve or over time. if you did own a 360 at launch you know xbl was not as good as it is today. but yah i guess short term memory can do that to you. alot of the stuff that xbl offers can be done free, you know and i know it.

 i dont own a ps3 yer (saturday i will) but i have played RFOM on a friends ps3 , and did play online. the lag i recieved is the same lag i would get from playing any game on xbl which is a little lag at times. but i stll pay for xbl , but i tihnk it can be done free also.

          If someone has not put it to you bluntly - I will - Nothing in this world worthwhile is FREE !!  Yet for some unknown reason you are trying to put forth a notion that both $ony & Nintendo$ love you so much; they feel the need to give you the Free Bee - just wake up and use some common sense !;)

If someone has not put it to you bluntly - I will - Nothing in this world worthwhile is FREE !! Yet for some unknown reason you are trying to put forth a notion that both $ony & Nintendo$ love you so much; they feel the need to give you the Free Bee - just wake up and use some common senseSecretPolice

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"] If someone has not put it to you bluntly - I will - Nothing in this world worthwhile is FREE !! Yet for some unknown reason you are trying to put forth a notion that both $ony & Nintendo$ love you so much; they feel the need to give you the Free Bee - just wake up and use some common sense2largeadults

[QUOTE="SecretPolice"] If someone has not put it to you bluntly - I will - Nothing in this world worthwhile is FREE !! Yet for some unknown reason you are trying to put forth a notion that both $ony & Nintendo$ love you so much; they feel the need to give you the Free Bee - just wake up and use some common sense2largeadults

[QUOTE="2largeadults"][QUOTE="SecretPolice"] If someone has not put it to you bluntly - I will - Nothing in this world worthwhile is FREE !! Yet for some unknown reason you are trying to put forth a notion that both $ony & Nintendo$ love you so much; they feel the need to give you the Free Bee - just wake up and use some common sensedhjohns

So standardization equals better? Personally I find that personalization is better on all fronts. I want to be able to control who enters my voice chat server, who messages me and I love the fact I can access a personal gaming website/forum created by me on the fly to get friends together. I like control and I like to be in an environment that lets me feel like I'm in control.

A question, not an assumption 2 large: Does PC gaming offer everything XBL does? I don't think so. DO you have a unified friends list, can you see what games they are playing, can you join in on their games, can you send messages to gamers (I guess IM would cover this). There are several other things XBL does, but you get my point. Again these are questions 2large. I don't pretend to be a PC gamer (my lose, I know *damn you Crysis!!*) so that is why I ask, my initial reaction to these questions is that most answers are no.dhjohns