Poll: Is Paying For Online Multiplayer On Xbox Live Fair?

[monkey-skitz 91]

Personally, I don't know but I'm leaning toward 'yes.'

Be aware though that I'm asking if paying for ONLINE MULTIPLAYER is justifiable and not a Gold membership.

i can understand paying for the gold membership, as the service offered is second to none. however, i was EXTREMELY pissed off to find that when i bought my second hand copy of dead space 2, i had to shell out 800 points to access the multiplayer.

 

[Nayr]

In my opinion, it makes sense that to play matchmaking in Halo or Call of duty, or even other online games you have to pay monthly. As well the price is not that much so I personally don't mind.

However the issue with the gold subscription comes with games like Phantasy Star Universe. I think that is what killed the game for me; a gold membership and a guardians lisence (monthly fee for PSU) seems to much. I have no problem paying for one or the other but, paying for both is hard, especially when I have student loans and stuff.

I wish that the gold subscription would pay for the service and the games you play online. So instead of for example buying a guardians lisence, part of what you pay for your gold membership went to that company directly. Of course that is not very feasible.

 

[jpoon]

Just to play online, I say no. But for all the other extra bullshit you get sure.

 

[Harry Mason]

Nah. I say, charge money for games, make their multiplayer free. Any step towards the "buy your bullets" microtransaction-future is a negative one, in my opinion.

 

[rmb1983]

Yes, oh wait, no dammit! I thought you were talking about the GOLD, and then I saw your second sentence, fuck.
And FYI to all you anti-360 people out there, GOLD just lets you play betas, go in parties and you get server priority in matchmaking.

And access some content (multiplayer or not) in quite a few games.
The most blatant example of this was in Fable II and III. I had my Gold down when III launched...it's probably why I never bothered to finish the game, as well.

 

[monkey-skitz 91]

Personally, I don't know but I'm leaning toward 'yes.'

Be aware though that I'm asking if paying for ONLINE MULTIPLAYER is justifiable and not a Gold membership.

i can understand paying for the gold membership, as the service offered is second to none. however, i was EXTREMELY pissed off to find that when i bought my second hand copy of dead space 2, i had to shell out 800 points to access the multiplayer.

Woah woah, WHAT!? So you have to get a NEW copy of Dead Space 2 in order to play multiplayer!? That, EA, is fucking bullshit. What about people who rent games before they buy? Are they supposed to drop 10 bucks on something they might not like, but are going to be stuck with!?

they give you a 48 hour trial which is linked to your gamertag, not the console. and new game buyers get a card with a multiplayer access code. but either way, when every other game's multiplayer is free with the game, charging a second hand game user for multiplayer is frigging ridiculous.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No it is not fair at least at the cost it is at. For starters all companies should let people buy/rent/set up their own dedicated servers for any game. I can understand paying a small amount of money for something like XBL since they do handle complaints and there would be minimal server upkeep. I don't care how low it is per month at the moment the amount required for what they do is not worth it compared to what competitors do. In short paying for what you get on XBL at least to the degree you do is disgraceful. I mean lets be honest you are paying for the privilege to host a game on your own system and use your own internet to play games. How they have gotten away with it thus far astounds me.

 

[Waaghpowa]

-

I only mention security because some people feel the need to bring it up as if it's relevant to online multi player.

Credit card companies shell out the big money on data security - mainly encryption and offsite redundancy storage. Their network security is there to prevent casual intrusion and nuisance attacks.

None of which will keep a cardholder's info safe if the cardholder doesn't keep their computer security up to date... which is why I always do a system scan looking for keyloggers before I punch in any important info.

I'm not denying that credit card companies don't already pay a lot for security, my point was that they don't pay more than they have to. I have an uncle who works as a software engineer for these kinds of companies and the level of security on cards isn't as great as it could be because of the fact that someone will crack it fairly quickly.