Jim Sterling says PS+ humiliates the game industry

Recommended Videos

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
flarty said:
Treblaine said:
No, because the ball is entirely in my court to crack my steam account and move to the competition with a few clicks of my mouse. And valve know that and couldn't get away with a small fraction of the shit consoles do because of that. I stay with Steam by carrot, not by stick.
So why cant console users not hack their consoles and play pirated games? Surely this nullifys this argument


You modify your console in any way you get the ENTIRE MACHINE banned.

On PC you have free reign to modify your games to a great extent, but you are only forbidden from cheating and otherwise exploiting the network (such as trying to hack people's data) that will only ban you from one network. You still have your computer with general access to the internet.


Buying an optional ps+ subscription off a device that only has one store for consumers to purchase from, is not the same as a consumer making the decision to buy something from steam or origin or any other numerous DD service. You would have a better time comparing it with apples app store.
Yeah, they are different. But not so different comparison is impossible. You can compare things that are different, especially when we are talking about buying the same games.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Treblaine said:
Yes I did, and No, YOU did.

You butted in with:

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.
That very first post I directly replied to, I asked WHY!
I don't think you get what I meant.

When you said:

"Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily."
I never admitted it was better, others did but I didn't and I wasn't acting like a console fanboy.

Your first part of your post may be directed at me but the rest wasn't.
 

WanderingFool

New member
Apr 9, 2009
3,991
0
0
I have quite the quandary now... In about 2 weeks my XBL Gold expires. I was going to get it extended as Im still enjoying Blops 2 and Borderlands with my friends, but after reading this, I just dont feel right doing it...

Im still going to extend my Gold, but Im going to feel bad about doing it...
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Eclectic Dreck said:
There are lots of reasons. From simplicity (consoles have the edge) to the ready availability of used games at dozens of locations in major cities, to initial cost of ownership. Yes, there are advantages to the PC; those advantages don't appeal to everyone.
Consoles used to be simple. They are supposed to be simple. But they have got more complicated as PC has gotten easier and easier. Everything automatically updates, do you have any idea how simple it is to get into PC gaming today?

Frankly, I do not beleive you if you claim to can buy download, install and then play to completion challenging console games yet can't do the same for PC.

The initial cost of ownership with consoles is a false economy.

You can't just have a console, you still need a PC for general web use, word processing, facebook, work, etc.

So you're getting something that could play games... then something else to play games. Better to put it all into a gaming PC, and the difference in price from a normal PC to a gmaing PC is much less than the cost of a console, especially if you are only trying to get graphics as good as console games... which for PC is generally mid-to-low settings. But with even a moderately priced gaming PC you can easily get High and Ultra graphics.

Pre-owned market cannot be the main feature as pre-owned games don't come from nowhere, every game that is pre-owned must have at one point been bought new. It can't work on a large scale, the fact is the games you want to play in high demand will either be rare or still expensive pre-owned. Everyone knows this, you try to get the latest COD in the first month it comes out pr-owned copies are few and far between and barely any cheaper than buying new.

You can't ignore that PC games start at a lower price, quickly drop in price then regularly have huge discounts. And this can function, it doesn't depend on most people buying new and you leaching off them buying their pre-owed games.

Crono1973 said:
Treblaine said:
Does it matter if they are free on Steam? They are free on PC and on PC you can use Steam or any number of competing networks and services.

This isn't about "service vs Service" TO HELL WITH THESE CORPORATION WARS! This is about what's good for the consumer.
1) If a game is free already then Steam giving it away for free is not a big deal.

2) Actually, this is about "service vs service".


Treblaine said:
So we can have a console war instead?!?!? That is far worse.

And this isn't a "war", this is isn't about bloody corporation's interests, this is about consumer interests. Or do some people need to disclose certain conflicts of interests, like Sony or Microsoft stock they are investing in?
You must be getting upset, your spelling is suffering, happens to me too when I get upset. We aren't having a console war, this is about which subscription is better.

Most people agree PC>consoles so why are we still comparing PS+ to Steam? Steam is not a subscription service.
1) yes it is, because those games are only free on PC, see this isn't about a particular corporation's service
2) I meant corporation's service,

No, you are desperate, nit picking a few typos

Most people agree PC>consoles
Then why is PC ignored?!?!?

Why limit to subscription service? Fifty bucks is fifty bucks whether spent in a subscription or in part. You do understand the same amount of money is leaving your possession?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Korten12 said:
Treblaine said:
Yes I did, and No, YOU did.

You butted in with:

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.
That very first post I directly replied to, I asked WHY!
I don't think you get what I meant.

When you said:

"Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily."
I never admitted it was better, others did but I didn't and I wasn't acting like a console fanboy.

Your first part of your post may be directed at me but the rest wasn't.
Well, It was. You really did sound like a fanboy dismissing everything I had to say about PC.

Excuse me but I thought your "believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam" without challenges was some kind of acknowledgement.

You're just being kind of a jerk telling me to just "realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be" which is excluding my argument completely arbitrarily.

Bottom line: what the hell do you have to add to the discussion other than stating the obvious point that some disagree with me??!?!?

What do YOU actually have to say about Steam and PC gaming relative to the supposed "humiliating superiority" of Playstation Plus. I've made myself clear enough that I think it's a rip-off, a false economy. And that PC is being ignored arbitrarily without reason or acknowledgement.

It's almost dogmatic the stubborn refusal to consider PC gaming.
 

flarty

New member
Apr 26, 2012
632
0
0
Treblaine said:
On PC you have free reign to modify your games to a great extent, but you are only forbidden from cheating and otherwise exploiting the network (such as trying to hack people's data) that will only ban you from one network. You still have your computer with general access to the internet.
Erm no you don't, there's numerous ways out there to hack a ps3 and a 360 without getting the machine banned. Sure its the form if peripherals. When taken into account with the cost of the console and their simplicity. They do kind of trump PC piracy. But really have we got into an argument over which platform is better due to its pirating abilities?


Yeah, they are different. But not so different comparison is impossible. You can compare things that are different, especially when we are talking about buying the same games.
We are not talking about buying games. We are talking about services. Consoles offer a service that resembles a closed ecosystem that the layman can not fuck up. Why do you think apple are so popular besides the snazzy design and marketing? why do you think windows are following this approach?
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Treblaine said:
Korten12 said:
Treblaine said:
Yes I did, and No, YOU did.

You butted in with:

Okay dude we get it. You hate consoles and believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam. So how about you get off for high horse and realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be.
That very first post I directly replied to, I asked WHY!
I don't think you get what I meant.

When you said:

"Why do you admit PC is better and console charges more, but that people don't want that?!!?!?

You aren't making any sense, you are just being a console fanboy rejecting everything arbitrarily."
I never admitted it was better, others did but I didn't and I wasn't acting like a console fanboy.

Your first part of your post may be directed at me but the rest wasn't.
Well, It was. You really did sound like a fanboy dismissing everything I had to say about PC.

Excuse me but I thought your "believe nothing can stand up to the awesomeness of Steam" without challenges was some kind of acknowledgement.

You're just being kind of a jerk telling me to just "realize not everyone is a PC Gamer and not everyone wants to be" which is excluding my argument completely arbitrarily.

Bottom line: what the hell do you have to add to the discussion other than stating the obvious point that some disagree with me??!?!?

What do YOU actually have to say about Steam and PC gaming relative to the supposed "humiliating superiority" of Playstation Plus. I've made myself clear enough that I think it's a rip-off, a false economy. And that PC is being ignored arbitrarily without reason or acknowledgement.

It's almost dogmatic the stubborn refusal to consider PC gaming.
Yes, I am a console fanboy. That's why I have triple the gaming hours on PC, have over 100 games on Steam and have a High End PC. Clearly I am a console fanboy. /sarcasm.

Problem is that your not adding much to the discussion other than: "PC IS BETTER," and refusing to acknowledge that not everyone is a PC Gamers, PC doesn't have all the games they want. Some people like to use their PC's for socializing not to play games and use their consoles to play games.

If they play mainly on their PS3 or just use their PS3 a lot. Then PS+ is a great deal for them because it expands their library and they have no reason to not be subbed to it because they get lots of games.

Steam is good for PC-Centric Gamers, PS+ is good for Playstation-Centric Gamers (or multi-system gamers). End of.
 

lacktheknack

Je suis joined jewels.
Jan 19, 2009
19,316
0
0
Stainlesssteele4 said:
lacktheknack said:
Stainlesssteele4 said:
Crono1973 said:
Stainlesssteele4 said:
I just don't like the idea that PS+ removes the idea of ownership, in place of a psuedo-rental system. To me it feels like putting too much power in the hands of the software distributor.
I guess Digital Distribution isn't much different, but to have physical expiration dates attached to games, with the threat of their cancellation just perturbs me.
I guess if I could get passed that notion, the idea is fairly cool.

Although... Steam doesn't charge me a monthly fee to get discounts on games.
The FREE game are the only ones that expire if you drop PS+. Any games you buy with a PS+ discount are yours permanently. Steam may not charge to get discounts but Steam also doesn't give away as many games as PS+.
I'm fully aware. The core reason most pick up PS+ is for the free games. The discounts certainly couldn't justify the monthly cost alone.
The Steam bit is a separate thought.
You DID read the OP, right?

There's around $2.5K in savings per month. You could easily justify a $50 payment for access to that.
You have to spend far more to get those discounts. Saving 2.5 thousand means nothing when you have to spend 3 thousand to do it. The free content might justify it, but that 1) Requires hard drive space, and 2) Requires interest in the free titles themselves, unless the person likes trying out new content (in that case, it would benefit them). The discounts, however, are for games that you might not want anyway, and still require a purchase. So why would I want to pay a monthly fee to get discounts on games?

If PS+ was as perfect as it appears, then Sony wouldn't be making anything off it.
I'm not saying it some 'Evil corporate control scheme from outerspace!', just that I personally (opinions, what are those?) can't rationalize using the service.
I'm not asking you to save $2.5K. I'm saying that you can easily save $50+ for $50. Of course, this assumes that you actually by games at a steady rate.

I'm not saying "YOU SHOULD USE IT, DAMN IT" (seeing how I don't use it either), I just contested "the discounts certainly couldn't justify the monthly cost alone", which isn't an opinion until you've added "to me".
 

Jegsimmons

New member
Nov 14, 2010
1,748
0
0
Isn't Sony loosing a shit ton of money though?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/sonys-game-division-loses-45-million-6389811


i say that justifies the cost of charging for a service they have to dedicate a fuck ton of servers and people just to keep running.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Jegsimmons said:
Isn't Sony loosing a shit ton of money though?

http://www.gamespot.com/news/sonys-game-division-loses-45-million-6389811


i say that justifies the cost of charging for a service they have to dedicate a fuck ton of servers and people just to keep running.
No, since I think last year they have been making a profit on every ps3 sold.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/06/28/ps3-profitable-price-cut-unlikely
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Foolproof said:
Signa said:
Eddie the head said:
Signa said:
I liked the article, but PS+ still sounds like a scam compared to what I'm used to getting with Steam.
50 bucks a year on Steam gives you a bunch of free games(ok rented.)? Where is this option?
Well, there isn't one, mainly because Steam pays for keeps, or gives you the games for free without a charge. Beyond TF2 and Tribes, I've hardly played a free-to-play game, but I've heard a lot of praise from my friends for games like Spiral Knights and Vindictus. Neither force you into a monthly/yearly service payment.
You do realise there are F2P games on the Playstation store too, right? Killzone 3 Multi, Dust 514, Free Realms? Thats not what we're talking about. These are full scale games that were meant to be sold for $60, and are now being given away by the service. Not some skinner box based bullshit that tries to trick you into paying to win, but actual honest to goodness games. Single player experiences.
Well Killzone 3's multi isn't free. Just really cheap.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Kheapathic said:
As much as I hate the term; JRPG's; those are my games of choice, one of which the PC doesn't give. My second favorite is fighting games, which the PC doesn't get the complete helping of. There are plenty more console specific exclusives that get released, however I'm sure you'll find them to be childish, mundane, or any other adjective you wish to use. By asking how would they know they wouldn't like the PC exclusive games, I don't know, but at the same time I never said they wouldn't. I merely said that many games people like don't get released on PC's. If you're going to bring up an argument, the burden of proof falls on you.

A friends list doesn't always fill up on the platform people use. I have less than 20 people on my PSN profile and under 5 on my Steam profile. It could be I don't feel the need to fill up my friends list, it could be the types of games I play or I could just be a raging asshole with only the most tolerant people around me. By stating a friend is a confidant I care about, people would go where their friends already are. You may see it as flimsy but people don't always act rationally.

Reasons
Specific games, friends, ease of readiness/required knowledge, lack of maintenance (mostly), local co-op (dying out sadly), familiarity (goes both ways). My apologies for not providing a plethora of reasons with my original post... I'm sure you'll quickly dismiss these anyway.

Along with my platitude shows your lack of caring or understanding why people may do things. You don't want to listen to reason on why someone may like something you don't. You see the problem as 1+1=2 which isn't wrong, but fail to see another's perspective of 1+2=3. Just because someone has a PS3 or 360 doesn't mean they can't partake in other games on other devices. If you could quit being so close minded you should realize the only circular logic here is your failure to listen to people who state their stance.

I did the best I could wit the time I have, but I'm sure you'll stick your head in the sand and continue to ignore any answer given.
Well, jRPGs. I guess there is that niche interest. But if you can play that card, what about MMORPGs?

The thing is I do own a PS3 (bought years and years ago, back when I was foolish enough to believe Sony's claims of its capability) but jsut because I buy the few exclusives I'm interested in for it doesn't mean I buy any more than that.

I merely said that many games people like don't get released on PC's. If you're going to bring up an argument, the burden of proof falls on you.
Sorry, that sounds like a claim you made. Claims need proof, the counter argument doesn't need proof, it can be simply "where is YOUR proof"?

You are making a claim of what games people like, yet you couldn't prove they don't like games they haven't played.

People who play PC games tend to have played consoles games for how pervasive they are amongst young children, even if they don't own consoles themselves their friends or relatives do and children are far more likely to share such things.

By stating a friend is a confidant I care about, people would go where their friends already are.
The problem with this is that it commodifies your friendship into an asset for corporations. Now your friendship is just a way to lock you in, knowing how implausible it is with how network for friends knowing friends knowing friends makes it impossible for one "lump" to move all at once.

I DID try that and I CANNOT recommend it, going where your friends go just because your friends go there is a way to jeopardise your friendship. The point is friends don't need constant interaction as a priority. That's for boy/girlfriend and spouses. And it's not like your friends are exclusive, you can make new friends and they don't cancel out your old friends.

If this was true, people would never leave their home town, because their friends are there. Facebook could end up being run like a south african junta but people won't leave because "their friends are there".

Corporations do not own your friends.


Specific games(goes both ways), friends(goes both ways), ease of readiness/required knowledge, lack of maintenance (mostly), local co-op (dying out sadly), familiarity (goes both ways).
As you can see "(goes both ways)" applies for more than the last one.

It's clear that both Console and PC have hardware reliability problems, but the difference is PC failure usually means only one component needs replacing. But a broken console means the entire thing needs replacing. Console repairs ain't cheap if they can be repaired at all, PC on the other hand.

s. You don't want to listen to reason on why someone may like something you don't.
I have repeatedly asked for sound rational reasons, and I'll keep asking till I get them. Not for platitudes and double standards.

You see the problem as 1+1=2 which isn't wrong, but fail to see another's perspective of 1+2=3.
I'm sorry, how do you expect anyone to find anything conclusive in that?

Just because someone has a PS3 or 360 doesn't mean they can't partake in other games on other devices. If you could quit being so close minded you should realize the only circular logic here is your failure to listen to people who state their stance.
Uuuh, duh. I know their stance, I just want to know why. They want good games and priase good deals but they reject good games on PC for a good price.

I did the best I could wit the time I have, but I'm sure you'll stick your head in the sand and continue to ignore any answer given.
Yes "sticking my head in the sand" by answering every. single. post, going line. by. line addressing every. Single. POINT!

Is that supposed to be me sticking my head in the sand?
 

Eclectic Dreck

New member
Sep 3, 2008
6,662
0
0
Treblaine said:
Consoles used to be simple. They are supposed to be simple. But they have got more complicated as PC has gotten easier and easier. Everything automatically updates, do you have any idea how simple it is to get into PC gaming today?
Beyond the complexities of choosing the computer with the myriad options most have no comprehension of, the dramatic increase in any wiring and configuration concerns and the like, sure. PC's have gotten "easier" - they are not, however, plug and play boxes as consoles are.

Treblaine said:
Frankly, I do not beleive you if you claim to can buy download, install and then play to completion challenging console games yet can't do the same for PC.
The process on PC is complicated by a great many factors. Not only are there competing services often with dedicated front ends that must be downloaded, you also get to deal with the delightful world of compatibility issues! The process, as a whole, is far more complex on a PC. It isn't by any stretch an insurmountable hurdle, but it does represent a reason that would concern some.

Treblaine said:
The initial cost of ownership with consoles is a false economy.
It isn't, actually.

Treblaine said:
You can't just have a console, you still need a PC for general web use, word processing, facebook, work, etc.
If we ignore the small business user, the fundamental requirement for a PC is a non-existent thing. Other devices can perform most of the actions one might use a computer relationally for. The window for the PC to be a fixture in every home is rapidly closing leaving it once again a device for professionals and hobbyists all thanks to advances in devices like the iPad, various smart phones, web integrated television and all the rest.

Treblaine said:
So you're getting something that could play games... then something else to play games. Better to put it all into a gaming PC, and the difference in price from a normal PC to a gmaing PC is much less than the cost of a console, especially if you are only trying to get graphics as good as console games... which for PC is generally mid-to-low settings. But with even a moderately priced gaming PC you can easily get High and Ultra graphics.
See the previous point regarding necessity. People who need a computer generally get one built to that purpose - this purpose rarely corresponds to a feature set useful for playing most games. People who have no pressing need tend to get one of the cheapest available which again is unlikely to result in a computer that is particularly good for game playing and, in many cases, has an incredibly limited upgrade path. That leaves people who buy computers for gaming and, assuming one builds and maintains it themselves, would cost at least 500 bucks cutting every possible corner. For the record, that assumes the purchase of a case and power supply (as a combination of reasonable quality this tends to start at around 100 USD and can quickly climb), 100 dollars for memory and storage (sufficient for 8 gb of reasonable quality memory and large amounts of storage space), 200 dollars for processor and motherboard, and 100 bucks for a video card. That ignores the peripherals of any sort (mouse, keyboard, speakers, monitor, etc), operating system (unless you go Linux, that's at least a hundred bucks), and disk drives of any sort.

The common counterargument to cost is of course "you can upgrade" but the home user who has thus far no intention of playing PC games isn't likely to have a system configuration suitable for meaningful upgrade in the first place. Yes, after an initial relatively steep investment, future upgrades tend to be relatively inexpensive as one rarely needs to replace every part. But, again, since we are discussing a hypothetical convert to PC gaming, we have to assume they build from the ground up.

So, for at least twice the initial cost of a current console, and a staggering difference in complexity of setup, you can get a gaming PC. Those are non-trivial concerns.

Treblaine said:
Pre-owned market cannot be the main feature as pre-owned games don't come from nowhere, every game that is pre-owned must have at one point been bought new.
Under current market conditions virtually any game can be acquired through the used market. Some games can be purchased for a pittance if one is willing to wait.


Treblaine said:
It can't work on a large scale, the fact is the games you want to play in high demand will either be rare or still expensive pre-owned.
It currently does work on a large scale. A multi-billion dollar company has the used market as the cornerstone of their empire and other retail companies follow suit from Best Buy to most mom and pop operations.

Yes, that may change in the future but we aren't discussion the future. We're discussing why people might not want to play PC games now.

Treblaine said:
Everyone knows this, you try to get the latest COD in the first month it comes out pr-owned copies are few and far between and barely any cheaper than buying new.
Yes, but if one makes common use of the used market, chances are very good they also sell games, which quickly results in games costing well under 60 dollars per purchase.

Treblaine said:
You can't ignore that PC games start at a lower price, quickly drop in price then regularly have huge discounts. And this can function, it doesn't depend on most people buying new and you leaching off them buying their pre-owed games.
Some games do all of those things. Those that are of high popularity, however, do not drop quickly. The call of duties, the Skyrims and others drop no quicker on PC than console. And, yes, while one may point to Steam sales, similar deals can be found at brick and mortar retailers on regular intervals.

While Steam might be an excellent model for how the business ought to run, to use a single service as the lynchpin of your argument is folly just as pointing to the current offerings on PSN is foolish. These things can and indeed have changed wildly.

Indeed, virtually every pro PC gaming argument relies on Steam in this fashion without realizing that they are devoted to a service not a platform.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Foolproof said:
Korten12 said:
Foolproof said:
Signa said:
Eddie the head said:
Signa said:
I liked the article, but PS+ still sounds like a scam compared to what I'm used to getting with Steam.
50 bucks a year on Steam gives you a bunch of free games(ok rented.)? Where is this option?
Well, there isn't one, mainly because Steam pays for keeps, or gives you the games for free without a charge. Beyond TF2 and Tribes, I've hardly played a free-to-play game, but I've heard a lot of praise from my friends for games like Spiral Knights and Vindictus. Neither force you into a monthly/yearly service payment.
You do realise there are F2P games on the Playstation store too, right? Killzone 3 Multi, Dust 514, Free Realms? Thats not what we're talking about. These are full scale games that were meant to be sold for $60, and are now being given away by the service. Not some skinner box based bullshit that tries to trick you into paying to win, but actual honest to goodness games. Single player experiences.
Well Killzone 3's multi isn't free. Just really cheap.
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/28/psa-killzone-3-multiplayer-goes-free-to-play-today-on-psn/
oh yeah. For like the first five levels but then you have to pay to keep playing.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
flarty said:
Treblaine said:
On PC you have free reign to modify your games to a great extent, but you are only forbidden from cheating and otherwise exploiting the network (such as trying to hack people's data) that will only ban you from one network. You still have your computer with general access to the internet.
Erm no you don't, there's numerous ways out there to hack a ps3 and a 360 without getting the machine banned. Sure its the form if peripherals. When taken into account with the cost of the console and their simplicity. They do kind of trump PC piracy. But really have we got into an argument over which platform is better due to its pirating abilities?


Yeah, they are different. But not so different comparison is impossible. You can compare things that are different, especially when we are talking about buying the same games.
We are not talking about buying games. We are talking about services. Consoles offer a service that resembles a closed ecosystem that the layman can not fuck up. Why do you think apple are so popular besides the snazzy design and marketing? why do you think windows are following this approach?
Err, no.

There are loads of ways where people claim you won't get caught but the people who make these promises have been proven to be wrong before, the point is they can and will block off your system if you try to modify anything.

We are not talking about buying games. We are talking about services.
Services that sell games.

Why do you think apple are so popular
They aren't. They certainly aren't loved. Macs make up a tiny proportion of home computer sales, even smaller proportion of actual connected users, their smartphone market is imploding. Apple were admired for a time as they had the lead in consumer electronics, they were not loved BECAUSE they had a locked down ecosystem, do not mistake what came with it was what it was loved for. Look at the apple keynotes, they go on about the phones hardware features and neat interface aspects, they underplay how you are in a walled garden.

why do you think windows are following this approach?
Because Steve Ballmer is an idiot.

He inherited the company from Bill Gates, a very smart man, smart enough to know he had more money than he could spend in a lifetime so be better retire early, and put his equivalent of Smithers in charge. Microsoft have a long history of doing dumb things, but they can get away with it because they have more money than most countries.
 

Fwee

New member
Sep 23, 2009
806
0
0
I won't be renewing my Gold subscription when it expires. It's just not worth the maybe... 3 games I play online.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Treblaine said:
Eclectic Dreck said:
There are lots of reasons. From simplicity (consoles have the edge) to the ready availability of used games at dozens of locations in major cities, to initial cost of ownership. Yes, there are advantages to the PC; those advantages don't appeal to everyone.
Consoles used to be simple. They are supposed to be simple. But they have got more complicated as PC has gotten easier and easier. Everything automatically updates, do you have any idea how simple it is to get into PC gaming today?

Frankly, I do not beleive you if you claim to can buy download, install and then play to completion challenging console games yet can't do the same for PC.

The initial cost of ownership with consoles is a false economy.

You can't just have a console, you still need a PC for general web use, word processing, facebook, work, etc.

So you're getting something that could play games... then something else to play games. Better to put it all into a gaming PC, and the difference in price from a normal PC to a gmaing PC is much less than the cost of a console, especially if you are only trying to get graphics as good as console games... which for PC is generally mid-to-low settings. But with even a moderately priced gaming PC you can easily get High and Ultra graphics.

Pre-owned market cannot be the main feature as pre-owned games don't come from nowhere, every game that is pre-owned must have at one point been bought new. It can't work on a large scale, the fact is the games you want to play in high demand will either be rare or still expensive pre-owned. Everyone knows this, you try to get the latest COD in the first month it comes out pr-owned copies are few and far between and barely any cheaper than buying new.

You can't ignore that PC games start at a lower price, quickly drop in price then regularly have huge discounts. And this can function, it doesn't depend on most people buying new and you leaching off them buying their pre-owed games.

Crono1973 said:
Treblaine said:
Does it matter if they are free on Steam? They are free on PC and on PC you can use Steam or any number of competing networks and services.

This isn't about "service vs Service" TO HELL WITH THESE CORPORATION WARS! This is about what's good for the consumer.
1) If a game is free already then Steam giving it away for free is not a big deal.

2) Actually, this is about "service vs service".


Treblaine said:
So we can have a console war instead?!?!? That is far worse.

And this isn't a "war", this is isn't about bloody corporation's interests, this is about consumer interests. Or do some people need to disclose certain conflicts of interests, like Sony or Microsoft stock they are investing in?
You must be getting upset, your spelling is suffering, happens to me too when I get upset. We aren't having a console war, this is about which subscription is better.

Most people agree PC>consoles so why are we still comparing PS+ to Steam? Steam is not a subscription service.
1) yes it is, because those games are only free on PC, see this isn't about a particular corporation's service
2) I meant corporation's service,

No, you are desperate, nit picking a few typos

Most people agree PC>consoles
Then why is PC ignored?!?!?

Why limit to subscription service? Fifty bucks is fifty bucks whether spent in a subscription or in part. You do understand the same amount of money is leaving your possession?
This is hopeless, even when people agree with you...