Poll: Should Xbox Live Be Free?
- Thread starter Eagle Est1986
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I play online through PS3 primarily, and it's free. It usually works really well, and for the most part (other than the fact that you can only have one headset online at a time, unless they've changed that) I have no complaints. I've only heard about 360 online, I have one and haven't payed the money to get a gold membership, but I've heard from a lot of people that it's not that worth it unless you play lots of shooters.
Is it wrong of me to expect to buy a game, pay to play it once when I actually buy it, and then be free to play it with other people who have also payed for their game once? Unless it's something like WoW, which has as far as I'm aware no real plot and is built to be played only online, I don't really see the point. I can play with friends on my own system and not listen to twelve year old boys cheer in their shrill, pre-puberty voices about fragging me.
Is it wrong of me to expect to buy a game, pay to play it once when I actually buy it, and then be free to play it with other people who have also payed for their game once? Unless it's something like WoW, which has as far as I'm aware no real plot and is built to be played only online, I don't really see the point. I can play with friends on my own system and not listen to twelve year old boys cheer in their shrill, pre-puberty voices about fragging me.
I have no problem paying for DLC but I do have a problem with the cost of memberships for live.
Ok, I bought the system, I bought the game, I pay for the internet connection, why should I have to pay to play the game with friends? That's like the free MMOs that you have to pay for if you want to do anything interesting in the game.
I don't think people realize what it would be like if you didn't have to pay for it.
That money you pay goes towards a lot of things, such as anti-cheat systems, matchmaking and other services. Take away the subsciption fee, and a lot of that will go away or get a lot worse. DLC would cost WAAAY more.
Take even the best PC games or MMOs, or even PSN. PSN has a pretty piss-poor network and community system - even developers like IW, Bethesda AND Valve have said so. Cheating is a little more lax on the PSN because the PS3 is fustratingly hard to work with, and very little pay-off compared to 360 or PC.
For the PC, either you have to pay to host games, or you have to have an inanely large amount of computer know-how to make a server that won't die in it's first week. (Sometimes you have to have both.) Further, cheating is rampant, and far worse on PC games, as it relies on playrs to do the enforcing, with devs only taking the time to try and deal with the absolute worst offenders, and its far easier to do.
That money you pay goes towards a lot of things, such as anti-cheat systems, matchmaking and other services. Take away the subsciption fee, and a lot of that will go away or get a lot worse. DLC would cost WAAAY more.
Take even the best PC games or MMOs, or even PSN. PSN has a pretty piss-poor network and community system - even developers like IW, Bethesda AND Valve have said so. Cheating is a little more lax on the PSN because the PS3 is fustratingly hard to work with, and very little pay-off compared to 360 or PC.
For the PC, either you have to pay to host games, or you have to have an inanely large amount of computer know-how to make a server that won't die in it's first week. (Sometimes you have to have both.) Further, cheating is rampant, and far worse on PC games, as it relies on playrs to do the enforcing, with devs only taking the time to try and deal with the absolute worst offenders, and its far easier to do.
I rather enjoy being able to use NetFlix via XBL, and down load shows, Movies, New game content, demos, etc...To be honest I don't rally like playing over XBL but I love the other content...and most of which requires Microsoft to pay for licensing...were it a completely free service, alot of the extra perks go away, the quality suffers, and to be honest I rather payto keep it going.
The cost itself I find to be pretty decent.. naturally I can always say it should be cheaper...but in all honesty It's already pretty damn cheap....
NOW....some of the content on the other hand should be worth less points.
The cost itself I find to be pretty decent.. naturally I can always say it should be cheaper...but in all honesty It's already pretty damn cheap....
NOW....some of the content on the other hand should be worth less points.
Because Microsoft pays and maintains the servers, wich is not the case on either the PS3 or the PC. You have to realise what you're paying for. That said, I own a 360 but I don't bother to pay for it. It's not worth it for me, I bought a 3 month card once and I barely played online. Safe to say that I won't pay for a Gold membership again. I'll just play all my online games on the PC.TheFurryChicken said:
Yes obviously. I know its a better online service then PSN or Wii but Microsoft has enough money as it is. Plus they make tons of cash off of DLC only on the Xbox 360, they get a lot of exclusive content.
Actually, no, because Xbox live subscription fees don't just account for expense coverage... the company makes a sizable profit. Which is a shame, since what it amounts to - in spite of the fact their servers aren't free - is game companies discerning another way to make something that was previously devoid of expense (like multi-player content already in the game - see RE5) an onus to the consumer.Paragon Fury said:
In my opinion, an idea worth exploring would be for Microsoft to screen games more actively the same way Nintendo used to with the "Seal of Quality", then impose a tax on the release of all titles that didn't pass the test that would cover the expenses associated with providing their online service. The upside of this, of course, would be a spike in Xbox ownership as well as the number of players online, though I still doubt the company would go for it, since their current business model appears to be successful.
Nope. It shouldn't. The money goes towards the servers. PSN is free, therefore Sony doesn't use their money for universal servers. Instead every company that releases a game which features online has to take care of their own servers. Some companies messed up their servers. Take CoD 4 on the PS3 as an example. Then, when the company feels that their tired of wasting money on their server if no one is playing the game, they cut online. It's disappointing really. Everyone needs to stop bitching about the price. It's only 50 dollars a year and you can't really argue that you're not getting your monies worth.
Then how come PSN or PC games are mainly free online? I agree with the OP that if I were to have to pay I'd demand a lag-free experience which isn't always the case. PSN delivers a more than adequate free substitute for X-Box Live. Then again I doubt it'll happen.mgt25 said:
It shouldn't be free because as so many people have mentioned it all costs money. And lets be honest Microsoft know people would pay to use Live because it's such a big part of their console and a lot of games, so why not make money from it? Oh and it's Microsoft who WILL make off anything they can.
To be honest, I've not got any issues with paying £40 for live, but yes I can see the point that it's not got anything huge that puts it apart from the other 2 consoles.
To be honest, I've not got any issues with paying £40 for live, but yes I can see the point that it's not got anything huge that puts it apart from the other 2 consoles.
I don't mind paying. I think it's good that the PSN is free although I'm not sure how they do it. Must be some kind of witchcraft. Anyway, I'm happy to keep paying for my XBL but obviously it would be better if they could make it free or at least cheaper. £40 a year isn't horrendous but I'm sure Microsoft don't need that much money. Then again, they do keep servers running on games that no one has played for the last 3 years and they do get us some exclusive DLC. How much did they pay for the GTA IV DLC again?