so why exactly is MS still charging us $50 a year for live? [enough arguing]

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='msdmoney']I like that feature too, but it really isn't a service that requires a monthly fee. Microsoft could allow the same functionality by simply including internet explorer on the 360, since Netflix users can already watch movies online on a pc. They provide a nice interface, but the interface is really only worthy of a one time app fee if anything, similar to how you would buy an app for the iphone. The service is provided by Netflix (content) and your ISP (bandwidth).
[/quote]
Thanks for the elaborated explanation, make sense to me. But you know how it is, some people just don't see it this way, hence kept on paying... There's nothing wrong with it though, it's all about convenience. Here's a simpler example:
I told my friend to use PSN $20/$50 cards, so that he does not have to attach CC info to the account. In addition, buying those $20/$50 cards from BB count toward R-zone rewards (or insert your own reward here). So, the PSN fund cards are a win win situation. However, he just like the way it is...

[quote name='msdmoney']
But none of that addresses why similar and comparable services to live are offered free on the pc, but Microsoft charges for them. Also, how does Microsoft charging for live keep companies from shutting down servers. If they are peer 2 peer like most games, what would they shut down and/or why charge for that to begin with? And some companies do have dedicated servers on live, and you paying for live doesn't keep them from shutting down (ie. Chromehounds).[/QUOTE]
Back to square one, XBL on-line gaming is not much different from PSN. Paying XBL does not make it any better than the free PSN. The only advantage is that XBL have a larger community, hence you can find games faster. However, even that argument is a bit flawed, since for popular games, i doubt there's a lack of game rooms.
 
[quote name='SlimJim0725']1) If you say so, I know plenty of people that are constantly having to upgrade to get the minimum requirements and then those requirements just get bumped up again for the next thing. Not everyone can drop $600-$700 at once on a PC (I know I wouldn't since I don't PC game), so they are clawing their way through to the next game.[/QUOTE]
That's just an ignorant gamer belief I have no trouble playing new games on my $450 laptop, and to keep my desktop current cost at most 75$ a year.

[quote name='SlimJim0725']
2) How are those subscription fees any different? We are paying a 1 time subscription fee for a year of $50 at most while something like WoW is at least that price in a few months time and we get the option to play more than one game at that price.[/QUOTE]
Subscription fees are different because you are paying to play a game such as WOW, that is how those games make their money, they could very well come out with WOW for 360 and charge you a subscription fee to play it. We are talking game services like LIVE, the only gaming services I know of on the PC are Steam and Live and they are both free

[quote name='SlimJim0725']My arguement is that to play these new release games "free" on the PC, you still have to pay for the upgrades to your PC in order to run them. .[/QUOTE]
Most free games have low system requirements.
Also Money has pointed out even if PC gaming where as expensive as you said it was, It's not like Steam or Live make money when some one upgrades there computer, They are able to run their services for free with no additional source of income.
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']NO it's completely wrong. Your defense of it is more evidence of your bias.
You need to buy a full year of XBL service at full MSRP to play a game online? Really?
And why isn't my ignore working on you?

GTFO and stop posting.[/QUOTE]


Sir, is there something wrong with you? I'm not defending anything here, i'm just pointing out flaws in the argument like what you guys doing. Is this so wrong?

No, you don't need to buy a full year of XBL to play a $60 game, NO, YOU DON'T! If the game is the only game you're going to play for the year, then yes! Which god damn part of the argument you don't understand?!?!

Why your ignore is not working? The hell i know, stop bitching and ignore me already then.
 
[quote name='Serpentor']
As for the argument "$60 the cost of a game and on top of it, $50 to play on-line" is not wrong, but just worded in the simplest way.
[/QUOTE]
Do you read the crap that you post?

[quote name='Serpentor']Sir, is there something wrong with you? I'm not defending anything here[/QUOTE]
Define: Defend
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The way you structured the topic title, you're taking the onus off of your individual choice. You CHOOSE to pay for Live Gold if you think it's worth it. Personally, paying $35 a year for the feature-expanding, superior online gaming experience is worth it to me. That's my choice. Until someone at least matches it, I will continue to pay for it.
 
[quote name='letsgetacid']The way you structured the topic title, you're taking the onus off of your individual choice. You CHOOSE to pay for Live Gold if you think it's worth it. Personally, paying $35 a year for the feature-expanding, superior online gaming experience is worth it to me. That's my choice. Until someone at least matches it, I will continue to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

It is not wrong, but just worded in the simplest way. :lol:
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']It is not wrong, but just worded in the simplest way. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Well, I never said it was wrong. It's just a connotation thing.
 
[quote name='wwe101']you are retard?[/QUOTE]
Must be; Explain and enlighten me please-

[quote name='letsgetacid']Well, I never said it was wrong. It's just a connotation thing.[/QUOTE]
I was being sarcastic, read the preceding few posts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top