Poll: Honestly, was Xbox Live worth it this gen? Will you pay for it next gen?

[spartan231490]

I'm not going to participate in the poll, because unless I win a next gen console, I won't be playing next gen. That said, I got a lot of enjoyment out of xbox live. Hell, significantly more than half of my playtime on the 360 is online multiplayer.

 

[spartan231490]

Xbox live is a service that charges money to access services that are free or that you are already paying for.

Want to watch Netflix? Yeah, that's going to cost you more than just the price for Netflix. Want to go to Facebook? Yeah, we're going to charge money to do that. Want to check a basic website? Yup, we're charging you for that too.

Valve, Nintendo and Sony all offer free online services and I while Nintendo's service can deal with some criticism I have never had problem with Sony and Valve delivers a better service completely free.

Xbox Live Gold charges me for a service that is just as good or not as good as free services.

Except online play. You can't play your online 360 multiplayer without it. That's what most of us do with our xbox live, far more than the other stuff

 

[Yopaz]

Xbox live is a service that charges money to access services that are free or that you are already paying for.

Want to watch Netflix? Yeah, that's going to cost you more than just the price for Netflix. Want to go to Facebook? Yeah, we're going to charge money to do that. Want to check a basic website? Yup, we're charging you for that too.

Valve, Nintendo and Sony all offer free online services and I while Nintendo's service can deal with some criticism I have never had problem with Sony and Valve delivers a better service completely free.

Xbox Live Gold charges me for a service that is just as good or not as good as free services.

Does Valve offer Netflix and Facebook too?

See there, I can nitpick too.

Its roughly 3.40$ a month if you can find the 13 month subscription cards. Closer to 5$ a month if you cant. Your paying for quality multiplayer service. Netflix facebook and its webbrowser are merely perks.

My point is, if your a xbox live silver member, who doesnt pay for the service because they dont feel like they should (or cant). Odds are that they have other means (easier means if you ask me) to access Netflix facebook and webbrowsing.

Steam got a built in Browser capable of letting you view Netflix and Facebook so yeah, they do let me use Netflix and Facebook. Also does the Xbox really offer these things?

Netflix offers Netflix. Facebook offers Facebook. Microsoft charges money for a service that is either free or already paid for.

 

[metaphyzxx]

When it's all said and done, I do believe it was well worth the price of admission to be a paid XBL member. I've paid almost the entire time I've had an 360, and to be honest I'd have felt naked without it. I haven't worried about my service going down for a few months due to hacking or anything like that. Going forward however, I do think it'd be in MS's best interests to add a bit more value to the service. It was nice of them to detach FB and Netflix from the service, so you don't need to pay for those, but PSN+ set a new standard. I'd like access to some free games or something to feel like I'm getting "more" for the amount they're charging.

 

[Weaver]

I've never paid for it and I probably never will unless the nature of the service becomes drastically different.

When Steam drastically outstrips XBL as a service, and is entirely free; and when PSN+ offers really great discounts and free games for members... it's a downright rip off. All you get is the ability to play games online, which has been free on PC since MUDs and Warcraft 2 were around.

I should also note on the Xbox multiplayer games are by and large peer to peer with one player acting as a host, which is pretty terrible. You're not even paying for servers. It's a scam.

 

[FFP2]

Aren't the games the main draw of PS+ though? In that case, they're not really free. That's what you're paying for.

Yeah but the total value of the games offered are way more than 60$

 

[TheLycanKing144]

Aren't the games the main draw of PS+ though? In that case, they're not really free. That's what you're paying for.

Yeah but the total value of the games offered are way more than 60$

They're still not free. That was my point.

Besides though: you lose the games when you lose PS+, which diminishes their value rather radically.

I hear this argument brought up but it doesn't work if you are paying for Gold. You are right that Plus is essentially a rental service, but so is XBL. What happens if you don't renew your Gold subscription? No more Halo online, no more COD multiplayer, you don't really own any of these games with XBL. You only own a portion and MS owns the rest, you pay MS a fee to rent the rest of your content that you already paid for.

The only difference is that one is an option (Plus) and the other is pretty much forced on you (XBL). Without XBL there isn't much point in the 360 platform or most of it's exclusives because you can't get the full experience without Gold. And comparing the value of the two alone, Plus kicks XBL to the curb.

 

[GonzoGamer]

The fee is one of the main reasons I don't have a 360. For a while it was mostly the rrod holding me back but after that was fixed, the online charge was still enough of a deterrent.
It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

 

[TheLycanKing144]

I have both a Xbox and a PS3 and can definitely say that XBL is worth it. It looks and runs so much smoother than psn. I would prefer not having to pay for it with the next gen but if I have to I will.

Forgive me as I'm not antagonizing you or anything, your opinion is welcomed. But I don't buy it when people say XBL is "much smoother than PSN", I have to stop you there. I have played games on both before and I didn't notice any difference between playing over XBL and PSN. COD, GTA4, and plenty of others all played the exact same on XBL as they did on PSN.

Which makes sense as most games are P2P, the "smoothness" of an online performance simply is based on your internet connection and the host. It has nothing to do with PSN or XBL.

 

[TheLycanKing144]

I hear this argument brought up but it doesn't work if you are paying for Gold. You are right that Plus is essentially a rental service, but so is XBL. What happens if you don't renew your Gold subscription? No more Halo online, no more COD multiplayer, you don't really own any of these games with XBL. You only own a portion and MS owns the rest, you pay MS a fee to rent the rest of your content that you already paid for.

The only difference is that one is an option (Plus) and the other is pretty much forced on you (XBL). Without XBL there isn't much point in the 360 platform or most of it's exclusives because you can't get the full experience without Gold. And comparing the value of the two alone, Plus kicks XBL to the curb.

I'm not really looking to compare PS+ to Live, I don't know why you're so eager to. Could talk about the advantages Live has over PSN (and vice versa here) but this PS vs Xbox crap ended years ago and I'm not looking to revive it. The launch of the PS4 and 720 will do that soon enough.

Well to be fair, you did bring up Plus so it's only natural in a discussion about XBL that people compare the two. I'm not interested in doing a PS vs Xbox thread either, I don't believe in that system wars nonsense. To me all gamers are equal regardless of their prefence, it doesn't make someone "wrong" for preferring one system over another.

 

[Extra-Ordinary]

In my opinion, it's worth it if you play online a whole bunch. You know, make it cost-effective.
I don't ever really online so for me it's not worth it.

 

[Zen Toombs]

No because aside from some games like Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed I don't play online and the only reason I even have XBL is so I can buy dlc which they block off from you if you don't have XBL gold.

Dude, you can download DLC with a Silver account. Silver accounts are free.

 

[Fluffythepoo]

No bungie (if its not bungie's halo its not worth shit), friends switching to sony, sony offering a better service for less.. theyd have to pull something pretty extraordinary out of their ass to make me ever get another xbox

 

[rob_simple]

I think it's funny that they've managed to convince a generation that paying for something we were doing for free on the PC for years is somehow acceptable.

I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for this console generation, though, since the 360 was the first console to have a stable online function (although how much of that was down to them and how much was just the inevitable result of huge improvements in internet connections I don't know) but I would love to hear how the plan to justify it if it's getting carried over to their next console.

All I know is, I've never had a problem using my PS3 online capabilities (except for that fuck up which, let's be fair, could have happened to either company) and from what I've seen Xbox Live in no way does anything better to the point where I'd consider paying for the service.

 

[FFP2]

They're still not free. That was my point.

Besides though: you lose the games when you lose PS+, which diminishes their value rather radically.

I get your point.

But really, is there any reason to not get PS+? I'm genuinely asking (don't have a PS3).

 

[Deathlyphil]

Aren't the games the main draw of PS+ though? In that case, they're not really free. That's what you're paying for.

Yeah but the total value of the games offered are way more than 60$

They're still not free. That was my point.

Besides though: you lose the games when you lose PS+, which diminishes their value rather radically.

Up until a month ago I agreed with you. Free games that disappear when stop paying for the service? Disgraceful!

However, when you look closer at it, most of the games they offer for free are singleplayer-focused games, and when you download them, they are active for 90 days. That is a long time to play through the game. Time enough for a second run too, if you are so inclined. After that, does it matter whether you "lose" the game or not?

In the last month I have played Infamous 2, Little Big Planet 2, F1 Stars, and Gravity Rush. That alone is worth the £11 I paid for a 3-month pass.
EDIT - I forgot Sleeping Dogs and God Of War. Downloaded but not yet played.

OT: I had Live since Halo 2, and until the last year I never regretted it. Now I don't have time to play multiplayer games, and so it really isn't worth me paying £40 for a service I can't use. I'll reserve my judgement over the 720 until we hear more about it. Same goes for the PS4.

 

[Yopaz]

Xbox live is a service that charges money to access services that are free or that you are already paying for.

Want to watch Netflix? Yeah, that's going to cost you more than just the price for Netflix. Want to go to Facebook? Yeah, we're going to charge money to do that. Want to check a basic website? Yup, we're charging you for that too.

Valve, Nintendo and Sony all offer free online services and I while Nintendo's service can deal with some criticism I have never had problem with Sony and Valve delivers a better service completely free.

Xbox Live Gold charges me for a service that is just as good or not as good as free services.

Except online play. You can't play your online 360 multiplayer without it. That's what most of us do with our xbox live, far more than the other stuff

By that train of logic Xbox 360 controllers are worse than Nintendo 64 controllers because they don't work on a Nintendo 64. Steam offers a much better experience for online multiplayer than Xbox Live gold. Sure you can't use Steam's online multiplayer on Xbox 360, but Xbox Live's multiplayer has actually prevented me from playing PC games online.