Poll: Should Xbox Silver have Multiplayer?

[PxDn Ninja]

Yeah, considering quite a lot of people fork out extra money for that £40 wireless adapter, then having to pay more for online is ridculous.

I should note that the Slim comes with wireless

but what I'm getting at is you already PAY for the internet service (usually) so why should you pay extra?

this isn't WoW where it costs millions to keep the servers up per year
this is Xbox, where servers are user hosted!

There is a lot that goes into keeping the XBOX servers up and running. We have to test our titles against many requirements to keep in line with what the Live servers run, as well as making sure our own servers can connect to Live.

All this means there is a large overhead for Microsoft to keep the servers running. There is also an overhead on Sony's side to keep PSN up and running. Sony chooses to eat the loss and recoup it elsewhere in order to make the claim that their online network is indeed free. There choice, and a solid one, but don't lie yourself into believing that the XBOX Live system is free for MS to run.

 

[soulasylum85]

in my opinion online gaming is superior on the 360 vs. wii and ps3. (i dont play pc games). so i dont mind paying what works out to $5 a month to have a superior service.

 

[omega 616]

Considering there going to/have already jacked up the price it will never happen.

I think they should, I have never owned an 360 but it sounds like you guys get ripped off something fierce. High percentage of it going wrong, paying for adapters etc.

Although it would mean the end of such comments like "XBL shits on PSN 'cos we pay for it".

Meh I don't feel ripped off, I have great titles, a great online service. I don't always use the other applications but I quite like having Last.fm and Twitter on there.

But most importantly I can basically socialize, I sometimes just sit there on the PC with my headset plugged in talking to people in party.

I find £40 a year for all these services to be a damn good deal.

It is all just opinions. The main thing I do on mine is play games, as I would if I had a 360, so paying £40 a year to play games is a rip off to me.

I don't use home, the video player, the pictures feature, BBC iplayer, other than demo's I have downloaded 2 things off PSN, I have only sent and got a few messages, never used the chat feature, The friend system so far has yet to be used fully, I don't use the music features, I haven't got a PSP, the internet browser is awful, I have yet to watch a bluray on it and probably stuff I haven't even mentioned.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

I don't own a 360, so needing Gold for Live is news to me. Rather angering news. I know it helps business, but I freaking hate the idea: any extra subscription fees should be able to play multiplayer, especially if I already bought the console and the game.

Before you say anything, I don't like MMOs, so don't use that argument.

 

[Wintermoot]

yes but the whole concept of paying for online without using ANY OTHER EQUIPMENT BESIDES THE SYSTEM is pretty fucking greedy wich is also why some people spell Microsoft like this: Micro$oft and also the reason why I only play singleplayer and local multiplayer games on it

 

[tgcPheonix]

Take Fable 3 as an example ...

Fable 3 Xbox 360 : RRP £49.99 + Gold Sub to play co-op...

Fable 3 PC : RRP £39.99

Silver should have multiplayer

 

[Motiv_]

Yes, I think it should be free. But will it ever be? Nope.

Multiplayer is the main attraction of Gold. Literally everything else that you get with Gold can be gained on the PC or PS3 for free. So, if they wanted to make multiplayer free, they'd have to pull a PSN and make the whole service free.

 

[viranimus]

Yes, in a limited capacity.

If its reached the level of greatest hits, Multiplayer should be opened to all.

 

[WanderingFool]

I say yes, but largely because I cant afford to spend money on a three month membership when im only going to be able to use it for a week. If they had a different plan, I wouldnt have a problem.

 

[IamSofaKingRaw]

Bias is a powerful thing.

Remember to read the post you are quoting, remember this:

Sorry but I have both a PS3 and 360.

[/quote]

But you fail to explain how psn is so terrible that you willfully WANT to pay to play on the 360. I used to have Live about 8 months ago for 3 months and I can say that the experience is basically the same. Live's menu looks better, but the PSN store isn't exactly terrible. Everything is organizd and user friendly. I've been gaming on my ps3 for about a year and a half and its the same shit. People overexaggerate the differences. They both offer full gams, arcade games, themes, avatars, PSn has Home. The only difference is that XBL has cross game voice chat and PSn has cross game text chat.

PSN also has video chat but not many people have the PSeye. Maybe with the release of the Move, more PSeyes will enter homes and it could be used to bring voice chat to the ps3. So yeah you're pretty bias in your opinion.

 

[ChurchV50]

MS has you paying for a service. Sony has you paying for a similar service. Nintendo has you paying for that service again. The only difference is where they get you on it. MS charges you upfront and in the open. Sony has every customer pay a little more for product regardless of whether they'll be using PSN, and Nintendo likely has people paying for the right to publish the shovelware. There is no such thing as a free lunch. XBL Silver is like the internet: gives you an online profile and provides an easy and secure access point to the XBL/Zune marketplace. XBL Gold gives you everything else. The only reason to have the silver tier at all is to let you spend money directly from the Xbox 360 Dashboard. Occasionally they do let Silver members play online for free, as well. But I digress. There are no free rides. Somewhere, someone always pays. As long as I know what I'm paying for and I'm getting quality goods or services in return, it's okay.

 

[AngryMongoose]

NO, that's what Gold is for.

In life you get what you pay for.

Sorry but I have both a PS3 and 360. XBox live is far, far better that PS online. There is simply no comparison in terms of quality of service.

Personally, I prefer my PCs internet gaming services to my Xboxes, and they're free. The connection itself is a bit dodgy, but it's the same connection on my PC, and at least I can fix it from my PC.

 

[smeghead25]

In WoW you're paying for the server cost which is millions a year

Xbox is user hosted meaning it costs them nothing

and as for "you get what you pay for"

I paid for the console, I pay for the internet, I pay for the games
that SHOULD be enough

but I guess you have enough disposable income to line the millionairs pockets so get back to me when you learn the value of money and what the difference between user hosting (Xbox) and server hosting (WoW) is

The bug fixes and updates are free
everything else has them for free (INCLUDING COMPUTER)
so what makes Xbox so special?

Ah but it is 'special'. It constantly breaks down and gets all heated up. Then it asks for much more attention and ends up costing it's owners a lot more blood, sweat, tears and money if they want it to work properly. And meanwhile the other consoles look on and make mean jokes about it.

OT: Xbox Live should have been free in the first place. It is no different to PSN and they both get updates for games as it is the developer's that make the updates, not Microsoft. All Microsoft do is make the dashboard updates, and in case lostzombies.com didn't notice, PS3 gets them too. Except it is much more organised and clear cut. Minus those godawful avatars.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

NO, that's what Gold is for.

In life you get what you pay for.

Paying for an online service = tech support, regular updates, improving service, server upkeep etc


Imagine if WOW was free to play, no updates, no fixes of bugs, no online support, no large servers, no dedicated servers (if there was they would be small and laggy/unstable) etc etc..


Sorry but I have both a PS3 and 360. XBox live is far, far better that PS online. There is simply no comparison in terms of quality of service.

It's why in the real world you don't hear people complaining about their rolls royce/bentley but talk to someone with a trebant/skoda and they can give you a list of faults.

I'm sorry but you really don't get what you pay. I play multiplayer on PC and experience is far superior to the 360. I would not mind paying Gold membership if Microsoft ran a multitude of dedicated servers that were being policed/moderated but they don't. You are basically paying to use a service that should really be free. Ye some other deserves to be payed for but the pure privilege of playing online does not deserve to be payed for especially with what you get.

Also on your latter comment about systems with higher specs really means f all. Just because consoles are standardised and run at a horrible 30fps constantly does not mean anyone has an advantage on PC. If your comp can't hack the higher graphics just turn it down a bit and you will still be fine. Your eye can only detect 60hz(as far as I remember but it is not far off that) and besides that ping plays a much bigger importance in online play which is all to do with internet speed. So overall given how console online works someone on that is actually having a bigger advantage than someone on PC with a slightly better rig.

 

[Treeinthewoods]

Well, if I had a PS3 I would be paying for their elite membership thing as well so it doesn't really bother me what features are/aren't included in the price tag.

Money, money, money it's just a little money so who cares? Not me!

 

[kouriichi]

Yes. But only a limited number of hours a day. (4-5)

Its unfair they charge us 60 bucks for a game, and then reoccuring chunks of cash so we can enjoy it every year.

Its ok with most MMO's, because the game itself is free. You can download it straight from the site and enjoy the free trial for several hours or days before you accually spend even a dime.

But they charge us 200$ for they system, 60$ for the game, and soon to be 80$ to play said game and system online.

I think allowing us a certin number of free hours a day ((that do roll over at the end of said day)) would be the most fair solution. Or atleast drop the price of gold so its affordible for masses.

 

[No_Remainders]

Of course most people are going to say it should have multiplayer. $200 for the 360, $40 for the wireless adapter, $40 for the router, and $80 for a year of Live. I'm regretting my purchase of a 360 over a PS3 at this point, I really am.

$80 for a year of Live?

That's impressive.

Only ?45 or about $60 over in Ireland. (That was actually 14 months as well, I got two months free with my purchase)

In any case; it's the price of one game per year, which is a much better deal than one gets for playing WoW which is about ?120 I think?

Nobody is making you pay for it. If you want to play online, then pay, but if you don't, then you can always play games like Fallout New Vegas or Bioshock or one of the many, many other single player games that are available.

 

[BaldursBananaSoap]

Yes. Why pay for a service cluttered with adverts and no dedicated servers. The thing is complete shit. Of course Xbox fanboys will defend it to the death, even though they're paying for no real reason other than Microsofts greed.

 

[martin's a madman]

They could have unranked multiplayer on silver.

 

[punkrocker27]

Absolutely. Far be it it from me if I'm going to keep paying for some crap I already bought (here's looking at you, World of Warcraft!)