why do we pay for LIVE?

[triforcer]

this has been bugging me for the last few days with the recent arrival of the new GOW map pack. so microsoft decides to charge us 10 bucks for 4 new maps, ok fair enough you want to make money on DL content. but why should we even pay for xbox live if we aren't getting anything that's worth paying for and i'm talking about dedicated servers. xbox live is essentially a pay for matchmaking service and a bad one at that. you'd think we would get perks (such as new maps) for being gold members, instead i feel we're just getting what should have been free in the first place. if we're going to pay MS to play online, they should host games on their dedicated servers because host advantage is an issue that still needs to be addressed.

i feel that last generation xbox live was well worth it. they provided plenty of free downloadable content along with the multiplayer access, but i think since they now have an established consumer base with LIVE they no longer need to provide those incentives. what's even more ridiculous is the fact that microsoft is actually preventing developers from releasing content for free like with the original xbox.

[Narbotic]

I think MS is milking live for all it can so it can make the 360 profitable. This is a big business milestone. They're pushing it before the Wii is online and PS3 network beefs up on content/users.
I personally think it's a bad move in the long run. It pisses off the core userbase(hence this thread) and hurts brand loyalty. But MS isn't known for 'daring' business moves.

[triforcer]

i actually find myself rooting for the playstation network so it would be more of a threat to LIVE and maybe knock a little sense to MS.

[porieux]

I wish Nintendo would get their act together with online stuff but that doesn't look like it's going to happen anytime soon...

[xtchuh]

Because if you can't afford it, then I would not want to hear your annoying immature voice online.

It's less than $5 a month. If you can't afford $5, then there is something up.

[mr ryles]

Tell me one thing that nintendo or ps3 online has over xbox live and I may consider that xbox live isn't worth it. Until then I consider xbox live worth every penny.

[PyroGamer]

But MS isn't known for 'daring' business moves.
Besides, you know, THE XBOX.

[wildnuts02]

Because if you can't afford it, then I would not want to hear your annoying immature voice online.

It's less than $5 a month. If you can't afford $5, then there is something up.


QFMFT

[xtchuh]

QFMFT = "Quoted for Mother F***ing Truth"

I had to Google it...

[Mister Switch]

we pay because they want to create perceived value. same reason they will avoid giving anythign away for free or reducing prices over time at all costs.

[Scorch]

if we're going to pay MS to play online, they should host games on their dedicated servers because host advantage is an issue that still needs to be addressed.

Hell fucking no. They host the game's online network, the users host the servers. I'm glad that they DON'T have dedicated servers. With the way it is now, I can go back and play Whacked! with some friends on the original XBox. It's not like EA or even Konami where they discontinue online support (Need for Speed Underground 2, NBA Street 3, MGS: Substinence, etc). I love the fact that they host the backbone of the games.. it's what enables us to have XBox retro nights here on CAG. Otherwise, servers for less popular games like Whacked, Midtown Madness 3, Star Wars: Jedi Academy, etc. would've been shut down a long time ago.

what's even more ridiculous is the fact that microsoft is actually preventing developers from releasing content for free like with the original xbox.

It's a bit nutty, yeah, but it all goes free eventually anyway. There's NOTHING that makes me feel like the Gears maps or even the new Vegas maps are a "must have".. they'll be free later on.

And like the other guys have said.. seriously, $5 a month. Come on. For god's sake, I make up the $50 difference in a week between talking to people around the world. No long distance charges.. I know some people that have XBox Live for that very reason. Same with the webcam.. cheap worldwide video conferencing.

In short, XBox Live is worth so much more than $50/year that I feel like WE are the ones shafting THEM out of the deal.

[Corvin]

Free opens the floodgates for the asshats. With no repercussions anyone can act like a dick and not be held accountable. With the possibility of losing your account and $50 investment and possibly your gamertag... it cuts down the amount of assholes.

Loosely moderated for $4 a month >>> free-for-all madhouse

[daroga]

I pay just to have the gold stars in my sig.

No, seriously, that's about all I've used it for in a month. But it's a solid network and knowing that I will play online in the not too distant future makes it worthwhile.

Regardless of what claims the Sony camp or Nintendo camp might make, there's nothing on either of those companies' systems that can even challenge Xbox Live. Don't kid yourself, folks. Sony has to do a ton of things before they'll be a "Live Killer," and Home ain't it.

But honestly, with a little deal shopping you can find things mega cheap. I got 15 months for about $2.80/mo. If I had known about the Gaming Lagoon thing (see my sig if you want) I could've gotten it for free. Oops! Regardless, it's not expensive. If it was MMORPG prices, I wouldn't do it. But as it stands, it's a great service, and I don't mind paying for it so that if the mood strikes I can just hop on and play. The fact that leaderboards, achievements, marketplace (including free stuff), demos, etc. are all available even with the Silver membership makes it a really, really great network.

[Draekon]

Hell fucking no. They host the game's online network, the users host the servers. I'm glad that they DON'T have dedicated servers. With the way it is now, I can go back and play Whacked! with some friends on the original XBox. It's not like EA or even Konami where they discontinue online support (Need for Speed Underground 2, NBA Street 3, MGS: Substinence, etc). I love the fact that they host the backbone of the games.. it's what enables us to have XBox retro nights here on CAG. Otherwise, servers for less popular games like Whacked, Midtown Madness 3, Star Wars: Jedi Academy, etc. would've been shut down a long time ago.

You know they could make it both except when they say dedicated servers it's not by the developer or publisher. It's by the users who have the ability to host 24/7 through a second console or possibly even make it so you can host it from the PC for console users. I think it would be a great addition that way as I've always enjoyed favoriting servers on PC shooters where I know I can just go and play a specific way such as more competitively or just hop in for a quick relaxing game or two where I know I'll get that kindof experience.



Anyways, I don't think Xbox Live should ever become free. If you have no fee then there are basically no reprecussions for those who cheat. People would feel more inclined to cheat because they lose nothing in the process and cheating would be on the rise a lot more than if you had to pay a fee. That is why I pay for Live and honestly care very little about a lot of extra junk they give us. I just hope we one day see a voice chat that can house more than two people.

I just don't want games I enjoy to end up like cheat/hack fests like many free games on the PC. Games like Unreal Tournament and Diablo II. It really destroys the experience and forces users to play secluded with their friends for the most part and is really annoying when they don't want to play anymore and/or never bothered getting it in the first place.

[lurknomore]

Silver is probably enough for m y gaming needs, but I still pay for Gold. I wouldn't do it if I had to pay full retail, but being that I am a CAG, I have purchased 2 years of Gold for less than what Microsoft wants you to pay for one year. Not really worth it for me seriously though, as I rarely have time to game online with 12 year olds that enjoy screaming obscenities.

[Brian9824]

Because if you can't afford it, then I would not want to hear your annoying immature voice online.

It's less than $5 a month. If you can't afford $5, then there is something up.

So by that logic you can afford to give me $5 a month for the rest of your life? Okay i'd like my money in singles please :-)

Just because something doesn't cost alot doesn't mean it isn't a ripoff. Yeah the price is good but honestly what are you really getting. Multiplayer and demos which CAN be done for free.

I'd like to see more free stuff sent our way since we are paying a monthly fee.

[terribledeli]

The answer to your question is

"Because Microsoft says so"

You play by their rules or you don't play at all. Is it shitty? Yeah. But so is paying for gas so I can go to work.

[velvet396]

In short, XBox Live is worth so much more than $50/year that I feel like WE are the ones shafting THEM out of the deal.
Please don't ever let MS hear you say that. A few of those opinions being heard and they'd consider adjusting the price.

All joking aside, it's not that it is $5 a month, it's $50 up front. That's a lot of money to some people (even those who can afford it) and it's in the impulse-buy range for others. It's commitment based, kindof like a phone contract. Pay as you go would be wonderful - an option of course, for those who want it, not forced upon all Live users. It'd be based on one major change, that there's a flat monthly rate. Currently you get a benefit the more you spend up front, great for MS, great for you. I think moving to a flat $5 month deal would still work well for MS, I think the number of new users would offset the number of people who might not re-up for a month here or there within a 12-month period.

12 for $50 = 4.17/mo
3 for $20 = $6.67/mo
1 for $10 = I'll kill you if you can't do that math.

Scrap all that and make it:
$5/mo

Prepay as many months as you like. They could get rid of the Live cards, or seriously reduce their production, and cut some costs right there.

I wouldn't mind them having an option for automatic deduction from my bank account - I use that already for things like my gym membership. Hassle free.

I'll shut up now.

This of course doesn't take into account things like gaming lagoon, which as you can see in my sig, has taken care of my Live needs for a while. :)

[javeryh]

Because if you can't afford it, then I would not want to hear your annoying immature voice online.

It's less than $5 a month. If you can't afford $5, then there is something up.

Amen. I get way more than my $4.XX worth every single month.

All joking aside, it's not that it is $5 a month, it's $50 up front. That's a lot of money to some people (even those who can afford it) and it's in the impulse-buy range for others. It's commitment based, kindof like a phone contract. Pay as you go would be wonderful - an option of course, for those who want it, not forced upon all Live users. It'd be based on one major change, that there's a flat monthly rate. Currently you get a benefit the more you spend up front, great for MS, great for you. I think moving to a flat $5 month deal would still work well for MS, I think the number of new users would offset the number of people who might not re-up for a month here or there within a 12-month period.

$50 for a one time purchase once a year really isn't that much money at all. I used to spend more than that on beer every Friday and Saturday night. It's really nothing.

[xtchuh]

So by that logic you can afford to give me $5 a month for the rest of your life? Okay i'd like my money in singles please :-)

Just because something doesn't cost alot doesn't mean it isn't a ripoff. Yeah the price is good but honestly what are you really getting. Multiplayer and demos which CAN be done for free.

I'd like to see more free stuff sent our way since we are paying a monthly fee.

And I guess you truly enjoy your life expecting to receive freebies correct? You are paying for a service that offers a lot for less than $5 per month. So yes, I have NO PROBLEM paying for it. Like an earlier poster said, if it was free, just wonder the amount of a-holes that would be playing. With the 360, I am able to Video Chat with a friend across the country.. Am I able to do that with PS3? No. Don't be surprised if PS3 starts charging for there online service in the near future. If they don't, I won't be surprised if they start putting advertisement up, or even worse make you sit through a god damn commercial before you play a game.

[Weedy649]

triforcer how long have you been a console online gamer?

For me it really started on the dreamcast, using dial up and a keyboard to play PSO, Worms World Party, NBA 2k, NFL 2k, you name it. I actually bought a ps2 and didnt play it because dreamcast was fun.

In rolls the network adapter for ps2. Cost $40 to add on, but i was all over it day one. Great times were ahead, and Socom with headset was revoluntionary. More online games rolled in, and among them would be Tony Hawk, Madden, Resident Evil Outbreak, etc etc. All were fun, but the most annoying thing would be having to set up a different user name and password for each single game you played. Then adding the same friends to those buddy list. Was a huge pain in the ass.

So i finally get into xbox live with a $17 clearanced kit at target. On the 360, now instead of calling up a friend to say "hey lets play socom", and then telling them which server and which room to join, all i gotta do is send him a quick voice message or even better, join in on a private chat.

Back when i made a friend in socom, it was just a friend in socom...thats it. Now, I can meet someone in splinter cell, and see that we both play gears, rs:v, CoD3, etc without asking.

Also as already mentioned, they dont cut servers off which was always a bummer when you loved a game on ps2.

So, i think if youve been using online gaming for a while, you can truly appreciate how much xbox live has done to revolutionize the way we play online. Also if you look at the way other people without live play, its pretty pathetic.

I kid you not when i overheard someone in one of my courses say
"The wii is so cool, i can send an e-mail to my buddy from it." Come on now, i can send voice messages, private chat, video chat, and read my regular messages from xbox.com.

I havent addressed the price of live, and feel there is no need to. The service speaks for itself. OP if you read one thing read this. The last game you currently played was GRAW. Firstly, if it wasnt for xbox live, theres no way in hell id know that. Secondly, you can still play GRAW to your hearts content on live with plenty other people...if that were on ps2, the servers would have been shutdown very shortly after GRAW 2 came out, since most are only kept up for about a year or until the sequel is out.

[I AM WILLIAM H. MACY]

It's not worth it at the general price, but since I got about 14 months for...$65, yeah, it's probably worth it for me

EDIT:
Why'd I say 14, I meant 26

I'm an idiot

[Apossum]

It should drop to $30 a year or less once Home gets going. They'll be equal in features except Home will be free(and it might actually be more full featured.) Also, PSN uses dedicated servers as far as I've seen, which means no lag, even on a shitty connection like mine (for the most part.)

If they were REALLY nice, they'd do dedicated servers for highly active games, then put them to ad-hoc when the game's popularity dies off.


anyway, it has been a nice run for MS, but competition is on its way...I'd love to be sentimental about the Microsoft Corporation and flex my financial stability by spouting about how I can afford $50 (ooohhh, wow) but realistically, it should go down in price per year by the end of 2008.


but I don't really care, I managed to get a bunch of years of live for extremely cheap through various deals.

[Chacrana]

I really don't think it's worth $50 a year. Yes, I realize that MS has a really good online system integrated into the 360, but unless I'm mistaken, it's the only system where you have to pay in order to play anything.... I think things will have to change when Home comes out and MS starts to lose their lead in terms of online functionality because as nice as friend's lists are... they're not worth $50.

[PyroGamer]

what's even more ridiculous is the fact that microsoft is actually preventing developers from releasing content for free like with the original xbox.
*sigh*

[dafoomie]

$3.33 a month. 11 cents a day. This is a financial burden to you? Maybe you need to get your priorities in order and not worry about video games if it is, because you're either homeless or 5.

Maybe in fantasy land, all of the infrastructure required for this is free. Unfortunately, MS is based in reality. I'll gladly pay my 11 cents for a vastly superior service. You couldn't pay me to tolerate the crap that is PS3 online.

Tycho from PA summed it up pretty well the other day.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2007/04/30

[red flare graf]

Itd be great if it were free, but it really doesnt bother me.

[Brian9824]

And I guess you truly enjoy your life expecting to receive freebies correct? You are paying for a service that offers a lot for less than $5 per month. So yes, I have NO PROBLEM paying for it. Like an earlier poster said, if it was free, just wonder the amount of a-holes that would be playing. With the 360, I am able to Video Chat with a friend across the country.. Am I able to do that with PS3? No. Don't be surprised if PS3 starts charging for there online service in the near future. If they don't, I won't be surprised if they start putting advertisement up, or even worse make you sit through a god damn commercial before you play a game.

Actually you can video chat with people across the country alot easier then with the 360. Heres JoyStiq and CheapyD doing it when it first came out....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8N1whYaEB4Y

So obviously it COULD be free.

[racthamp]

Public good? (Am I right? i haven't taken econ for a long time ;) ) and $$$ of course :)

[Surferflames]

Frankly the biggest issue for me is that I am paying to play online on a service that has major latency issues. Sure, it's on a game by game basis, but a good 50% of the time my experience is hindered because either people are intentionally running bad connections, or developers are running bad code.

With this whole "certification" process they like to boast about I would assume it acted retroactively. IE if MS agrees to let the game be released, they also require the publisher/developer to keep on top of any new problems that arise. GRAW2 for instance is impossible to just "pick up and play" online if you don't play it religiously. 90% of ranked rooms will boot a level 1 player and it's nearly impossible to find a non-ranked room. Other games share similar game-breaking flaws as well, some of which have been ongoing for months.

[JJSP]

No one said you had to pay $50 a year. There's always the 1 month cards available.

Seriously though, $50 is enough of an incentive to stop people from signing on just to cause trouble. I'm happy with that.

[Limegreen]

Nothing that is free is good enough , can't compare the free sony and nintendo online to live !

[RAMSTORIA]

its really not that expensive. and even though i dont use it everyday i still think ive gotten my moneys worth.

[Malik112099]

[rant on]

Home is NOT an xbox live competitor..its not even in the same class. Home is second life for the ps3 with an apartment, hall of fame and other crap im not interested in while xbox live is a fully integrated media/gaming/content network for the X360. Home is basically a game you have to basically launch to use and then it is pretty self contained....yes, you can play games against other people but only the games contained within home..no thanks. Live is a fully integrated (across the console and all games), constantly running (as long as you are signed in) application which connects me to friends, gamers, media, movies, trailers, chats, messenger, video conferencing, demos, monthly artist videos, tv content, HD content, documentary style vids, etc etc etc. On top of all that i use the 360 to stream music and movies from my oc to my tv, media center for playing slideshows for people, listen to xm, check out mtv and vh1 videos and content, etc etc etc....and THEN there is also the arcade with lesser priced games for me to play leisurely by myself or against friends and i can hop online to check friends playing and send/recieve messages and pretty soon Live will be integrated into games for windows and be free for people that already have a gold account on their xbox and people will be able to game cross platform...oh and my friends list is my friends list...its not game specific and cross game invites can be sent and i can see the other games people are playing even if im not playing the same game.....oh and you can have guests play with you in unranked games....

I am not renewing my subscription to OXM because of Live....why pay $24 a year for demos when they are included in the price of Live? I already read all my reviews online...

Why bitch about dedicated servers? Unlike the sony network i dont have to worry if i can still play CoD or NFS:Most Wanted online....like what was stated earlier if you want to do some retro gaming its no problem on Live......as for sony it all depends on whether or not support is still offered for that particular game....the first game ever made to utilize xbox live is still playabel online....does this hold true for sony's free service?

why bitch about having to pay for a year in advance? you can purchase 1, 3 and 12 months cards....yeah the 1 and 3 month are more expensive per month than the 12 month but as in EVERYTHING ELSE EVAR, you pay less when you buy in bulk.

Why bitch about paying up front? you had to pay up front for the console and the games (and in my case extra controller, vision cam, wireless headset, wifi adapter and HD DVD player) so why not pay up front for live which is just another non-mandatory accessory to the xbox? if $50 ONCE A YEAR is that big a hit to your wallet you do not need to be actively involved in a hobby that currently carries a cover charge of at least $300. and if it is still a big deal put it on a credit card and pay the minimums for forever.....

all in all you cannot beat xbox live for the price.....you get SO MUCH for seriously so little.......


[/rant off]

[Kapwanil]

Thanks to CAG I've been paying around $1.10 a month for the past year, and this extends until mid-2009 so far. Granted, the usual price for Live seems a bit excessive, but it depends on what you want to get out of it.

Personally, I love it for what it is, even when I was paying $50 a year. I go online, can see which one of my friends are playing what, toss them a message and hop right on in. If not, I toss in an old BC title from the old XBox and give that a whirl online just for kicks. Granted, sometimes the lag sucks and I wish that there were dedicated servers, but if it means that I can still pop in Street Fighter 3 another two or three years down the road and it's still fully supported...fantastic!

And charging for certain content? I don't necessarily see why not, in some cases. If Epic is getting a piece of the 800 point pie there along with MS then all the better. Sometimes money talks, and if the success of people buying 4 new maps (which will be free in a few months anyway) entices them to create a few more since it has proven profitable...eh, fine by me. I like additional content and if the devs are willing to provide for a slight exchange of money, fine by me.

To each their own, though. I just find Live to be worth it overall, especially if you can nab some deals via CAG. It's certainly not free but when it hits the "eat one more dinner at home rather than out" level of monetary involvement a buck here and there doesn't bother me.

[Brian9824]

The problem with charging is many of the companies DON'T want to charge. Microsoft forces them to however

[jer7583]

i really think MS is pushing it with subscription fees on top of charging for content. It should either be microtransactions or subscription.

At least the subscription fees should have been less this generation, like $30 or $20 a year, since they're looking to make money back on selling 4 maps for $10, and people are stupid enough to buy it.

Playing Diablo 2 on PC for free with no fees lately whatsoever has kind of made me realize that the live charges are kinda BS. That said, I'll keep subscribing, because it's a good service.

[captmurphy]

I pay because I enjoy it, simple as that. The cost isn't really an issue. I am paying about $2.80 per month for a service.... some people spend $2.80 per DAY text messaging with no complaints.

[Walt Jay]

MS is taking advantage of being first to market with an online service that is worth anything. I have no problems paying for Xbox Live, especially when you can score deals on subscription cards pretty easily. In fact, I just got a 12 month code for $25 from a CAGer, and I can honestly say XBL Gold if worth $2.08 per month. :)

Until Sony or the Big N can provide something as good as Xbox Live Gold with regards to its consistent presence from game-to-game (voice chat, multiplayer, leaderboards, etc.) I have no problems paying for a service that I feel is worth the money.

[Tha Xecutioner]

Dedicated servers effectively kill host options and custom games (and gametypes), two of the major strengths of Xbox Live. Play Delta Force: Black Hawk Down and the Battlefield 2 on the Xbox and then try to convince me how dedicated servers are always the answer.

[NWgamer666]

My big issue is I'm paying for multiplayer. I want it to be damn good, not just a matchmaking service. Shit, we could have true.com take over xbox live and it would prolly work better. Half the time I can't get into a room for an arcade game or it will drop someone when game starts. See worms. This is due to the ad hoc individual 360's hosting the games. If we had one uniform server, wouldn't everyone be able to connect all the time once settings are properly set. Examples: Battlefield 2: MC vs. Rainbow six

Battlefield 2: EA hosts the dedicated servers - people can join into a large battle at any point, and will always connect to any game currently going on. Matches have a huge amount of participants, and can have a lot of crap going on at once. Disadvantage - EA servers have gone down at times when xbox live was doing fine, but this was rare in my experience. There might be lag, but it is equal for everyone, and i didn't notice it much.

Rainbow six- host xbox 360's connection is what the game depends on. I cannot even join a game with a buddy of mine who lives in my town when he hosts. We have to call each other on the phone and try to join in to a match at the same time in order to try to find someone who can host both of us. This has ruined our experience. Half the time, I can't get a voice connection with a few people in the room. This is BS, there's only 14 people playing at most in typical game.

I pay for multiplayer, they better damn well deliver and not blame it on peoples router settings. (mine is set to open by the way)

[Surferflames]

Dedicated servers effectively kill host options and custom games (and gametypes), two of the major strengths of Xbox Live. Play Delta Force: Black Hawk Down and the Battlefield 2 on the Xbox and then try to convince me how dedicated servers are always the answer.
Just because dedicated has worked that way on consoles in the past does not mean that is how dedicated servers work. PC games have seen "false host" style dedicated servers in which the first person joining/creating/whatever is given the ability to adjust settings.

Obviously the option for both is ideal, but to use examples from a few sub-par, failed console games as a generalization for the idea in general is just wrong.

edit: Thinking about it further, I seem to even remember "vote for admin" systems to appoint a "keyholder-host" for the game.

[richierich]

Actually you can video chat with people across the country alot easier then with the 360. Heres JoyStiq and CheapyD doing it when it first came out....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8N1whYaEB4Y

So obviously it COULD be free.

Great video, makes me laugh. "Error, error, Error!" X

Anyways, yeah it's cool the PS3 lets you use usb headsets.

[Brian9824]

Yeah i really love how the PS3 lets you use just about any USB device. Hell you can use the xbox live vision camera on it.

One of my biggest gripes is microsoft's proprietary formats for alot of their stuff :-(

[benjamouth]

I'm very happy with Xbox Live, I moved to the US from the UK and Live allows me to play games and chat will my 360 owning mates in the UK as if I was sitting in the room with them. That alone is worth $4 a month to me.

I don't have a PS3 so I can't make a valid comparison, if the PS Network is as good as Live and you're getting that for free then great, thats a cracking deal and a real plus for the PS3.

I'm happy to pay $4 a month for a service that's reliable and easy to use, micro-transactions I may not be so happy about but I think Live is pretty good.

[benjamouth]

Yeah i really love how the PS3 lets you use just about any USB device. Hell you can use the xbox live vision camera on it.

One of my biggest gripes is microsoft's proprietary formats for alot of their stuff :-(

Yeah, thank god Sony never use proprietary formats for anything ;)

[terribledeli]

I do find it delicious people love to bitch about Live, but aren't willing to cancel subscriptions to prove a point.

If the OP is that unhappy or thinks he's getting screwed over, he'd shitcan his gold account. Even "sticking it" to Microsoft by buying cheap doesn't punish them. The retail store has already paid Microsoft for their product.

[Mister Switch]

I do find it delicious people love to bitch about Live, but aren't willing to cancel subscriptions to prove a point.

If the OP is that unhappy or thinks he's getting screwed over, he'd shitcan his gold account. Even "sticking it" to Microsoft by buying cheap doesn't punish them. The retail store has already paid Microsoft for their product.

just because you think your spaghetti could use more salt doesn't mean you should vomit it out just 'to prove a point'

[terribledeli]

just because you think your spaghetti could use more salt doesn't mean you should vomit it out just 'to prove a point'

What a terrific analogy. Too bad it doesn't make sense in this situation. The OP didn't once say "Well, there's a lot of problems with Live but we're getting some goodies. I'd like to see it improve."

He moans

"xbox live is essentially a pay for matchmaking service and a bad one at that."

"you'd think we would get perks (such as new maps) for being gold members, instead i feel we're just getting what should have been free in the first place."

"what's even more ridiculous is the fact that microsoft is actually preventing developers from releasing content for free like with the original xbox."

and

" if we're going to pay MS to play online, they should host games on their dedicated servers because host advantage is an issue that still needs to be addressed"

He is clearly unhappy with the service overall and offers no "pinch of salt" improvement. Instead of doing something to protest his preceived slighting, he just creates an unoriginal topic on a message forum and wants everyone to champion something he read on TeamXbox.com last week.

[Tha Xecutioner]

Just because dedicated has worked that way on consoles in the past does not mean that is how dedicated servers work. PC games have seen "false host" style dedicated servers in which the first person joining/creating/whatever is given the ability to adjust settings.

Obviously the option for both is ideal, but to use examples from a few sub-par, failed console games as a generalization for the idea in general is just wrong.

edit: Thinking about it further, I seem to even remember "vote for admin" systems to appoint a "keyholder-host" for the game.I know how dedicated servers work on PCs, but we're not talking about PC games..we're talking about console games. No dedicated server in the world beats the speed and ease of hitting the A button to start a room, inviting 3+ friends, and launching the game (a process that doesn't take over a minute). And to point the finger at games like Battlefield is not wrong, especially when people mention these few games that do have their own servers set up and how great they are. Until a company can show that it has a strong, stable server on Xbox Live (getting dropped/not being able to join 45-50% of the games on Battlefield 2:MC does not qualify as a good online server, EA) then there is no point in going to an all-dedicated server community. And, in the end, even with this utopia of dedicated servers and no host advantage, the people who pay $100~ a month for high speed internet still have an advantage over basic DSL users and the like (just like on Gears). With something like Xbox Live, there's no way to ensure completely equal ground for every single player.

Instead of doing something to protest his preceived slighting, he just creates an unoriginal topic on a message forum and wants everyone to champion something he read on TeamXbox.com last week.Like he said... REPOST (http://editorials.teamxbox.com/xbox/1967/AN-INCONVENIENT-TRUTH/p1/)

[Apossum]

[rant on]

Home is NOT an xbox live competitor..its not even in the same class. Home is second life for the ps3 with an apartment, hall of fame and other crap im not interested in while xbox live is a fully integrated media/gaming/content network for the X360. Home is basically a game you have to basically launch to use and then it is pretty self contained....yes, you can play games against other people but only the games contained within home..no thanks. Live is a fully integrated (across the console and all games), constantly running (as long as you are signed in) application which connects me to friends, gamers, media, movies, trailers, chats, messenger, video conferencing, demos, monthly artist videos, tv content, HD content, documentary style vids, etc etc etc. On top of all that i use the 360 to stream music and movies from my oc to my tv, media center for playing slideshows for people, listen to xm, check out mtv and vh1 videos and content, etc etc etc....and THEN there is also the arcade with lesser priced games for me to play leisurely by myself or against friends and i can hop online to check friends playing and send/recieve messages and pretty soon Live will be integrated into games for windows and be free for people that already have a gold account on their xbox and people will be able to game cross platform...oh and my friends list is my friends list...its not game specific and cross game invites can be sent and i can see the other games people are playing even if im not playing the same game.....oh and you can have guests play with you in unranked games....

I am not renewing my subscription to OXM because of Live....why pay $24 a year for demos when they are included in the price of Live? I already read all my reviews online...

Why bitch about dedicated servers? Unlike the sony network i dont have to worry if i can still play CoD or NFS:Most Wanted online....like what was stated earlier if you want to do some retro gaming its no problem on Live......as for sony it all depends on whether or not support is still offered for that particular game....the first game ever made to utilize xbox live is still playabel online....does this hold true for sony's free service?

why bitch about having to pay for a year in advance? you can purchase 1, 3 and 12 months cards....yeah the 1 and 3 month are more expensive per month than the 12 month but as in EVERYTHING ELSE EVAR, you pay less when you buy in bulk.

Why bitch about paying up front? you had to pay up front for the console and the games (and in my case extra controller, vision cam, wireless headset, wifi adapter and HD DVD player) so why not pay up front for live which is just another non-mandatory accessory to the xbox? if $50 ONCE A YEAR is that big a hit to your wallet you do not need to be actively involved in a hobby that currently carries a cover charge of at least $300. and if it is still a big deal put it on a credit card and pay the minimums for forever.....

all in all you cannot beat xbox live for the price.....you get SO MUCH for seriously so little.......


[/rant off]


:applause: very spirited. too bad you have never actually used home so your rant is mostly empty speculation.

For one thing, all those awesome features you mentioned are in home (well, I don't know about VH1 vids, but those would go perfect on the Wii :lol: ) and the arcade games on PSN have been cheaper so far (aside from Tekken, but that's a full featured, current gen game. even then, Tekken was cheaper than lumines when all is said and done.) And a lot of casual games are integrated with the Home avatars (ala wii sports)


I don't know if Home is going to beat Live or anything like that, but if you don't think it's a competitor and write it off as "Second Life" you're just plain wrong.

[danked]

its the best for online but its getting sad when someone wants to give away free content, and MS forces a 800 point pricetag, so it does make me think why do I pay so much..

[Graystone]

I enjoy live and its service. They have the online market as good as it can be. Friendly interface, it works well. Some things are over priced but you don't have to buy them.

[flybrione]

I love XBL and it keeps me and my friends in contact all the time. I don't have any issues with the price tag and I enjoy the ease of community it has.

[Spades22]

Ya, I mean 50 bucks a year isn't much at all...but you think that with Sony offering free dedicated servers and Nintendo having free online too, that by paying 60$ Canadian we'd at least get a few dedicated, lag-free servers... =/

[Mister Switch]

What a terrific analogy. Too bad it doesn't make sense in this situation. The OP didn't once say "Well, there's a lot of problems with Live but we're getting some goodies. I'd like to see it improve."

He moans

"xbox live is essentially a pay for matchmaking service and a bad one at that."

"you'd think we would get perks (such as new maps) for being gold members, instead i feel we're just getting what should have been free in the first place."

"what's even more ridiculous is the fact that microsoft is actually preventing developers from releasing content for free like with the original xbox."

and

" if we're going to pay MS to play online, they should host games on their dedicated servers because host advantage is an issue that still needs to be addressed"

He is clearly unhappy with the service overall and offers no "pinch of salt" improvement. Instead of doing something to protest his preceived slighting, he just creates an unoriginal topic on a message forum and wants everyone to champion something he read on TeamXbox.com last week.

how is improve matchmaking, perks (a few games/gamerpics/themes/videos/music/dlc at no additional cost) and letting developers chose to release free dlc not a 'pinch of salt' solution? how much work do you think it takes to create a gamerpic or theme?

as my analogy illustrated; there is a spectrum of displeasure - the OP doesn't hate XBL, they just see room for some simple improvements (aka a pinch of salt). you dont have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[triforcer]

Because if you can't afford it, then I would not want to hear your annoying immature voice online.

It's less than $5 a month. If you can't afford $5, then there is something up.
what kind of shitty argument is that, just because it's cheap it's automatically worth it? and when did xbox live stop having immature, racist asshats on their network? it's not the point that it's an affordable price to pay, we all pay more to get fast food each week. the point is we're paying for what something akin to EA charging for things that should already be in the game. the only reason being is that MS is the first ones to make a big push in the online console market.

Tell me one thing that nintendo or ps3 online has over xbox live and I may consider that xbox live isn't worth it. Until then I consider xbox live worth every penny.can't i also compare it to the pc market though? i mean the only difference is that MS closed off their system so we have to pay. so when you do look at the pc market, you'll see it pretty much exceeds the multiplayer experience for free.

Hell fucking no. They host the game's online network, the users host the servers. I'm glad that they DON'T have dedicated servers. With the way it is now, I can go back and play Whacked! with some friends on the original XBox. It's not like EA or even Konami where they discontinue online support (Need for Speed Underground 2, NBA Street 3, MGS: Substinence, etc). I love the fact that they host the backbone of the games.. it's what enables us to have XBox retro nights here on CAG. Otherwise, servers for less popular games like Whacked, Midtown Madness 3, Star Wars: Jedi Academy, etc. would've been shut down a long time ago.
but wouldn't it more beneficial we were allowed to have both user run dedicated servers and MS official servers.

Free opens the floodgates for the asshats. With no repercussions anyone can act like a dick and not be held accountable. With the possibility of losing your account and $50 investment and possibly your gamertag... it cuts down the amount of assholes.

Loosely moderated for $4 a month >>> free-for-all madhousenot really, if you play xbox live regularly with random people you'll know that there are still a large amount of dicks playing. and couldn't MS just ban the IP instead?

And I guess you truly enjoy your life expecting to receive freebies correct? You are paying for a service that offers a lot for less than $5 per month. So yes, I have NO PROBLEM paying for it. Like an earlier poster said, if it was free, just wonder the amount of a-holes that would be playing. With the 360, I am able to Video Chat with a friend across the country.. Am I able to do that with PS3? No. Don't be surprised if PS3 starts charging for there online service in the near future. If they don't, I won't be surprised if they start putting advertisement up, or even worse make you sit through a god damn commercial before you play a game.can't you video chat on silver accounts too?

triforcer how long have you been a console online gamer?

...

I havent addressed the price of live, and feel there is no need to. The service speaks for itself. OP if you read one thing read this. The last game you currently played was GRAW. Firstly, if it wasnt for xbox live, theres no way in hell id know that. Secondly, you can still play GRAW to your hearts content on live with plenty other people...if that were on ps2, the servers would have been shutdown very shortly after GRAW 2 came out, since most are only kept up for about a year or until the sequel is out.

i've been playing online consoles since the original xbox when i happily paid for the service back then, but i've been playing online PC games for years before that on and off. yes everything you mentioned about seeing what i've been playing and chatting with people are great features, and they're also already free for silver members. if MS gave the option for user dedicated servers along with their current hosting solution wouldn't that still ensure older games don't get left out?
$3.33 a month. 11 cents a day. This is a financial burden to you? Maybe you need to get your priorities in order and not worry about video games if it is, because you're either homeless or 5.

Maybe in fantasy land, all of the infrastructure required for this is free. Unfortunately, MS is based in reality. I'll gladly pay my 11 cents for a vastly superior service. You couldn't pay me to tolerate the crap that is PS3 online.
no $3.33 isn't a financial burden on me and it sure isn't to you, so i'm sure you go out of your way to help poor kids in third world countries by giving 11 cents a day to them, right? and xbox live maybe vastly superior to something like the ps3 network, but in online gaming for all platforms including PC, it's a joke and you get it for free on the PC.

[rant on]

Home is NOT an xbox live competitor...

...

all in all you cannot beat xbox live for the price.....you get SO MUCH for seriously so little.......


[/rant off]i'm bitching about paying for stuff that gold members get that silver doesn't. mainly just multiplayer and leaderboards, yes like i've said before it's not that big of a cost issue. things that are traditionally accessible free in other online platforms.

I do find it delicious people love to bitch about Live, but aren't willing to cancel subscriptions to prove a point.

If the OP is that unhappy or thinks he's getting screwed over, he'd shitcan his gold account. Even "sticking it" to Microsoft by buying cheap doesn't punish them. The retail store has already paid Microsoft for their product.yes i'm unsatisfied with the way MS is handling LIVE right now, but why would i cancel my service if i already paid for it? all i would be proving by cancelling my account is that i know how to waste money.

What a terrific analogy. Too bad it doesn't make sense in this situation. The OP didn't once say "Well, there's a lot of problems with Live but we're getting some goodies. I'd like to see it improve."

He moans

"xbox live is essentially a pay for matchmaking service and a bad one at that."

"you'd think we would get perks (such as new maps) for being gold members, instead i feel we're just getting what should have been free in the first place."

"what's even more ridiculous is the fact that microsoft is actually preventing developers from releasing content for free like with the original xbox."

and

" if we're going to pay MS to play online, they should host games on their dedicated servers because host advantage is an issue that still needs to be addressed"

He is clearly unhappy with the service overall and offers no "pinch of salt" improvement. Instead of doing something to protest his preceived slighting, he just creates an unoriginal topic on a message forum and wants everyone to champion something he read on TeamXbox.com last week.i mentioned that MS should start their own dedicated servers to improve the live experience. give us free content that would have been free anyways if MS didn't stop it. and no i don't read Teamxbox.com, but that's for recommending that article.

how is improve matchmaking, perks (a few games/gamerpics/themes/videos/music/dlc at no additional cost) and letting developers chose to release free dlc not a 'pinch of salt' solution? how much work do you think it takes to create a gamerpic or theme?

as my analogy illustrated; there is a spectrum of displeasure - the OP doesn't hate XBL, they just see room for some simple improvements (aka a pinch of salt). you dont have to throw the baby out with the bathwater.thank you for paying attention.

[Deadpool]

Actually you can video chat with people across the country alot easier then with the 360. Heres JoyStiq and CheapyD doing it when it first came out....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8N1whYaEB4Y

So obviously it COULD be free.

LMAO! it took them 2 minutes to get a picture. That's not easier than 360.

[jer7583]

In the end, Xbox Live isn't perfect, there is lag, there are issues connecting to people, there are overpriced marketplace stuff, and the points system is BS.

That said i'd take it over Sony or Nintendo's anyday, even for $50.

[Apossum]

LMAO! it took them 2 minutes to get a picture. That's not easier than 360.


That was around launch day. it has been updated a few times since then, as is my understanding.

[Mister Switch]

thank you for paying attention.

np. not everyone is a reactionary zealot. ;)

[dafoomie]

no $3.33 isn't a financial burden on me and it sure isn't to you, so i'm sure you go out of your way to help poor kids in third world countries by giving 11 cents a day to them, right? and xbox live maybe vastly superior to something like the ps3 network, but in online gaming for all platforms including PC, it's a joke and you get it for free on the PC.
Since you can apparently afford to drop $600 on a console, why not drop $600 on some orphans? This is not an argument.

XBL vs PC is comparing apples and oranges. One is a general purpose machine that will run software written by anyone, and the other is a closed proprietary system that you have to pay a fee to publish software for, as are all consoles. You know what else is cheaper on PC? The games. You know what costs more? The hardware. Ever wonder why? Welcome to the video game console business model. They subsidize the cost of the hardware by charging more for the software. If you don't like this practice, then by all means, pay more up front for a PC, and get your games cheaper and your services for free. Consoles and PC's are not comparable, they are two different things for two different markets.

This brings us to our other lesson, nothing in life is free. Not even PS3 online. Unlike those of us living in fantasy land, it costs money to operate, it costs Sony money and it costs the developers money. Unlike XBL, the burden and expense of operating these servers is placed on the developer. How does this affect you? There is not a unified experience due to each developer having to create their own systems separately. Games are less likely to support an online component on PS3 due to the added expense. Budgets for creating PS3 games are going to be lower due to the ongoing expense of operating these servers. Many games discontinue their online services after the game's run is over, due to the expense. Game prices could rise, you could be charged a monthly fee by individual games, and the system likely costs more, due to the expense. There is no such thing as a free lunch, you're paying for "free" PS3 online with poorer service and likely higher costs elsewhere.

[slickkill77]

I love live but i must say if they gave us dedicated servers it would be nice....and i think Gold members should get a discount or they should make some kind of reward program for ppl who buy lots of stuff

[triforcer]

Since you can apparently afford to drop $600 on a console, why not drop $600 on some orphans? This is not an argument.

XBL vs PC is comparing apples and oranges. One is a general purpose machine that will run software written by anyone, and the other is a closed proprietary system that you have to pay a fee to publish software for, as are all consoles. You know what else is cheaper on PC? The games. You know what costs more? The hardware. Ever wonder why? Welcome to the video game console business model. They subsidize the cost of the hardware by charging more for the software. If you don't like this practice, then by all means, pay more up front for a PC, and get your games cheaper and your services for free. Consoles and PC's are not comparable, they are two different things for two different markets.

This brings us to our other lesson, nothing in life is free. Not even PS3 online. Unlike those of us living in fantasy land, it costs money to operate, it costs Sony money and it costs the developers money. Unlike XBL, the burden and expense of operating these servers is placed on the developer. How does this affect you? There is not a unified experience due to each developer having to create their own systems separately. Games are less likely to support an online component on PS3 due to the added expense. Budgets for creating PS3 games are going to be lower due to the ongoing expense of operating these servers. Many games discontinue their online services after the game's run is over, due to the expense. Game prices could rise, you could be charged a monthly fee by individual games, and the system likely costs more, due to the expense. There is no such thing as a free lunch, you're paying for "free" PS3 online with poorer service and likely higher costs elsewhere. yea it's not an argument, neither is saying it may be a financial burden to me just because i question why they're charging us.

and PC gaming must be the fantasy land you're talking about and they are comparable because of how xbox live handles the server hosting which is done by the user. we're using our machines and our connection to play these games, the same way pc gamer's do. and going on about your speculation about what will happen with the PS3 and their games, i think it's unsupported. you really think sony wont subsidize the cost for these developers to encourage them to put online in their games, of course they will. and if the cost for creating an online experience is so expensive, how the hell are PC publishers and developers doing it? right there's no licensing fee, but their budget increases just like console developers even more so with the faster rate of graphical improvements on the PC. not only that but they charge less for the game while we now have this new standard for next gen game prices.

[Rig]

I only pick up 48-hour trials if I want to play online. I really don't use it enough to justify a purchase of a Gold account.

[AshesofWake]

because it's worth the money in the amount of fun i receive.

[integralsmatic]

i love live. its the only way i can communicate with anyone over the net without the use of emails and phone numbers..hell i made a friend from spain...how cool is that? anyway live is worth the money..and if you dont like paying for the DLC than dont pay for it. simple as that. i dont mind buying some of the DLC on live..like symphony of the night. to relive that again is killer and to only pay 10 bucks instead of buying a rare ps1 copy is way better.

[Zoglog]

3 words....

Hosted Severs Assholes

[VipFREAK]

Two things...

1. Even if it's a subscription that cost $ their will still be idiot/assholes... they just might not be 12.

2. I don't care if it's a small amount a mo. when it's blatent gouging and they can keep getting away with it. It's not right and I will have no part of it.

Untill people wake up, vote with their money, and not buy their shit this problem will continue. Then they will countinue to laugh all the way to the bank.

[seanr1221]

You get what you pay for. Sure, the PS3 lets you make your own name for free, but the 360 does so many little things that really strengthen the online experience.

For example, say I like to play Live with Scorch. I could be on Call of Duty 3, see him log in, shoot him a message asking if he has the latest game for Live, and within seconds be playing with him. Maybe after a few rounds we get bored and boot up an arcade game. It's just so connected that I don't mind paying 50.00 at all. However, you can always find deals...I'm running on 2 years for 40.00 myself.

[Spades22]

Ya true on the deals...really you shouldn't have a problem finding it for 20$ less at least than the usual price. Right now theres like "Free 1400 MS points with XBL Gold card" in Canada which is 20 off...and there was also Splinter Cell:DA for 60 or 70 bucks awhile back and it came with a free XBL gold card...

[Mister Switch]

20$ less at least than the usual price. Right now theres like "Free 1400 MS points with XBL Gold card" in Canada which is 20 off...

...wait, what? where?!

[psychobrawler]

The unified experience on Live is awesome. I've been on since the beginning, and I don't plan on cancelling. I have gotten a couple of great in store deals, so my actual cost has been lower since the whole in-store card renewall thing started too. Dedicated servers would be great, but most games don't have so much issue that it's necessary. Now if they would just implement a party/matchmaking type system a la Halo 2 that could be used in every game played on Live, the experience would be damn near perfect for me.

The fact I can play free on PC doesn't effect me since I don't play PC games... I'm sick of that argument. If that experience makes you happy, then go play a PC game and stop bitching in the 360 forum.

Everyone says "vote with your wallet" and I think that enough people have told MS that Live is worth $50 a year that they're not likely to change it.

[Stuttering Billy]

XBL is perfect for me and my friends. Being in my 20s my friends and I have all moved out of are home town and are now all over the world. XBL is the only way I have kept in touch with all my friends from highschool and collage. I can go online, hit one button and see who is online.
Also being a "adult" I dont have a problem paying the $5 a month for XBL.

[jer7583]

XBL is so good, people just don't understand. Have fun with MySpace on PS3. That thing is going to turn into an absolute garbage heap of pop-culture. Should be tons of fun.

[seanr1221]

XBL is so good, people just don't understand. Have fun with MySpace on PS3. That thing is going to turn into an absolute garbage heap of pop-culture. Should be tons of fun.

What?

[NWgamer666]

Even if you're not a fan of dedicated servers hosted by a provider, wouldn't one at least want the option to use them? Especially if they worked better for certain games.

[DrFoo]

I don't feel like reading the entire thread but honestly XBL should either be free or they shouldn't be charging for extra content. Servers and bandwidth don't cost anything anymore (well at $5/month/person they are making quite a large profit off of most people). An average player probably uses less than 1 gb of bandwidth a year for just match making (which is all your paying for since silvers can get demos and all).

I'll still pay it because I like Rainbow Six Vegas online, but honestly unless you have your own game servers it should be free (like everybody else in the entire world does it).

XBL is so good, people just don't understand. Have fun with MySpace on PS3. That thing is going to turn into an absolute garbage heap of pop-culture. Should be tons of fun.

Aren't you the one who is always complaining about the PS3's price? Factor in all the years of XBL you plan to pay for and then go shoot yourself, please. And yes I know PS3's online isn't amazing yet but so far everything is downloading at fantastic speeds (I'm getting 3,000 kb/sec here, which is honestly much faster than anything I get on XBL).

[dpatel]

Live is great, and is currently unmatched. As long as that is the case, MS can get away with charging for it. I think, for what you get, it is definitely worth it. But, I also think it can be done for free. XBL really doesn't introduce anything that hasn't already been done on PC (for free). The main difference is, it combines all of these into one great experience. I think, as long as nobody can match Live they will charge for it, and it will be worth it, but I would like to see other companies step up to the challenge. Right now, I think Sony has the best chance, although they are still quite a ways off. Home will help, but, with the introduction of that, it seems like they may be heading in a different direction than Live (not better, not worse, just different).

[Kaijufan]

Live is an amazing online system. I love how it's required to be integrated in all 360 games, and how easy it is to use. I wish the Wii had an online system half as good as Live.
However, I think it's kind of crazy that we have to pay for player hosted matches. If Live used dedicated servers I could understand why we would have to pay, but it's pretty stupid we are paying for something that should be free, especially since Microsoft is making money on DLC and they have ads on the dashboard.
Microsoft really either give Gold members some free DLC, and charge silver members for the content or get rid of the silver accounts and making gold free for everyone (to refund those that have paid for Gold accounts they could give us marketplace points).
Even with XBL's faults I'm willing to continue to use it since it works so well and I've never paid full price for it.