Why should Xbox Live and DLC be free?

[U-Warrior]

Alright, with the announcement of the new COD 4 map packs, I am seeing more and more of this. About how you have to pay for a service that the competition offers for free.

As someone who owns all the systems and is connected to the internet on all three, let me tell you something.

They aren't the same service.

Live is literally, LIGHT YEARS beyond what PS Network and wii offer. I can honestly say, I would have no problem paying, even if they increase the price.
Besides, it's 50 fucking dollars. Anyone can afford that. Don't give me that "but I'm in college" bullcrap. You got your hands on an xbox 360 and games, but a 50 dollar a year internet service is impossible? Come the fuck on.

As for DLC, most games are worth the 60 dollars you pay, and the developers aren't obligated to do anything, other than patch bugs and design flaws.

So whats the deal here? WHere does tpww stand on this.

[Blitz]

Completely agree.

[IC Champion]

Completely agree.

[DS]

I think Live should be completely free but I have no problem with paying for DLC that I find worth it.

[D Mac]

Free is free. More beer for me!

[dablackguy]

Live is literally, LIGHT YEARS beyond what PS Network and wii offer.

As someone who owned a PS2 before his 360, Live puts the PS online service to shame. Yeah, you have to pay for it but its a far better product.

I think people get pissed because while you pay for one and not the other, it connects you to the same internet. Whatever. I personally thought I'd have more of an issue (read:annoyance) paying for it than I do. I'll happily pay what winds up being something along the lines of <$5 a month

[darkpower]

Right now Live is better but not as attractive because of the 50 dollar fee and of the P2P way of setting up multiplayer games. They have the achievement that right now are the big advantage. That and they right now have the bigger install base. Plus, right now, their Marketplace's interface is MUCH more user friendly than the PSN is. And don't forget those two exclusive DLC things they get on GTA4. Don't think I'm just going and outright bashing the 360 because I can or that I'm a fanboy of any system.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves: Live isn't this godsent just because we have to pay for it. The downtime during the holidays wasn't welcome, and Microsoft is really strict about what servers a game runs on (theirs). Plus, the notion that "we don't care WHAT your expenses are, you can pay 50 dollars a year" (you forgot that, it's not a one time fee. I think it's 50/year or something like that for the gold membership) is kinda lame considering that you have to pay that before you even GET access to the online stuff (plus you have to buy the game itself and the ISP you need to even GET online). Also, with the backwards way I've heard the "XBL police" actually do their policing sometimes, you never know how one might interpret anything. Some sore loser might whine that you were cheating to win and they might never even do a little investigating before rendering their verdict (not sure if this is as severe as I heard it was, but I don't have a 360 right now, so I don't know anything about this first hand).

Oh, and don't forget the number of the beast on the 360 still: the RRoD that still looms over the system like a bad omen. The hardware is still not as reliable as it should be, which is a shame. If you're paying to play online, you REALLY don't want that thing to fail and you have to ship it back. That's 50 dollars that's not being put to good use. Factor also in that you may not be playing online every single day you use that 360.

Now, right now the PSN has the more attractive service because it is free, the hardware is more reliable, and every game has its own server to play on. Everything is run through those servers and you don't have to set up this P2P thing. Generally, it should run smoother, and I really haven't had a problem (aside from a few pull-outs on Guitar Hero and Rock Band and the fact that, for right now, I SUCK at COD4 MP) with playing online at all. It seems just like I'm playing someone sitting beside me. The achievements that XBL has as an advantage might be erased, too, once Home comes out (which should be by summer, although they seem to move the goalposts a hell of a lot with that).

However, the PSN Store is far from perfect. It's tough as hell to be able to go up one level in the hierarchy when you get into the separate categories (I shouldn't have to press L1 all the fucking time when I just want to go back to the Rock Band alphabetical selection screen. There's no option to do that). This should be fixed, however, within the next few weeks as Sony announced that they are changing the design of the store (which, judging by what they said it might be looking like, should be pretty cool). There's not as big of an install base right now, and although I never experienced it, some people have said that they can get disconnected from time to time (I do, as well, but that's just because the router I got right now sucks ass and knocks EVERYONE offline whenever it feels like it).

So yeah, XBL is a bit better, but I don't think it's THAT much better, and once Sony fixes this stuff and (finally) launches Home, I think it'll become a battle.

As far as your notion about the Wii...I forgot the Wii HAD an internet service.

[Funky Fly]

I am in complete agreement. Also, Live is free. It's the Gold ish you pay for. Bug fixes, DLC, system updates... all of that is free on Silver tier.

Greedy ass bitches be whining and crying and shit.

[Kane Knight]

Partial agreement. I don't even mind paying for live's gold service.

However, there has been a trend of late to release effectively incomplete games, then sell the content to consumers. In effect, you're not paying 60 bucks for the same title you would have sans DLC.

Some DLC should be free. Even if you disagree with the above, it's ostensibly good business to let the customers know you're not nickel and diming them. Take Ace Combat, which is releasing skin packs they charge for, but also a freebie every couple of weeks.

[Xero]

Some DLC, for example, map packs, I have no problem paying for. But I shouldn't have to pay, for example, for the inclusion of weapons. That's ridiculous.

Then again, PC games have had DLC, really since its modern conception, and aside from full-on expansion packs (in most cases), it's all been free, and no, I'm not counting user-created content.

It's another way companies will make money and it was inevitable, so I don't have that much of a problem with paid DLC as long as it's decently priced for what you get.

[Kalyx triaD]

You should head to the Bungie and see how they bitch over any type of payment. $50 for Live? $10 for three maps?!

Get a job you cheap bastards.

[G]

even if it was free, people would still bitch about shit.

[Xero]

"I should be PAID to download this shit!"

[Kane Knight]

Some DLC, for example, map packs, I have no problem paying for. But I shouldn't have to pay, for example, for the inclusion of weapons. That's ridiculous.

Then again, PC games have had DLC, really since its modern conception, and aside from full-on expansion packs (in most cases), it's all been free, and no, I'm not counting user-created content.

It's another way companies will make money and it was inevitable, so I don't have that much of a problem with paid DLC as long as it's decently priced for what you get.

Couple things:

One, comparing it to the PC market, where you often get everything short of full expansions for free, is part of what gets people riled up. XBL members are paying five bucks for horse armor, when you get a decent nnumber of upgrades free on PC.

Two, the value. Well, part of the problem is that there's a legit issue with the value of these items. Taking for example the justification that Bringing Down the Sky delivers a movie-length experience, justifying its cost because it's a 90-minute expansion. Of course, if you play through it, it can be as little as a 30 minute "movie experience" and that's not very good value compared to a game that boasts over forty hours of gameplay for 60 bucks.

And that's the thing. The cost of these packs are disproportionate. Not to mention the standards of content in games is going down.

Which brings me to Kalyx's fanboy logic. Bad value is bad value, no matter how much money you have. I'm amazed at how dumb consumers are nowadays.

[Kalyx triaD]

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h230/Kalyx_triaD/stfu2sl.jpg

[Kane Knight]

Please do.

[DS]

I am in complete agreement. Also, Live is free. It's the Gold ish you pay for. Bug fixes, DLC, system updates... all of that is free on Silver tier.

Greedy ass bitches be whining and crying and shit.
I think that's pretty much my problem right there. I went out and spent $400 on a system that has everything ready to play online. But I have to spend another $50 a year just to play with others.

I get that Live is a great service but there's no reason that a great service cannot be free.

[Kane Knight]

I think that's pretty much my problem right there. I went out and spent $400 on a system that has everything ready to play online. But I have to spend another $50 a year just to play with others.

I get that Live is a great service but there's no reason that a great service cannot be free.

There's no reason it can't be, but is there any reason it should be?

[Kalyx triaD]

There's no reason it can't be, but is there any reason it should be?

Nice non-post.

[Kane Knight]

When you come up with something better than "get a job," we'll talk.

Until then, I asked a valid question.

[Kalyx triaD]

No you didn't. You posted a statement and like a single character later challenged it. That's like debating with yourself. Has it finally gotten to that point, KK?

[jcmoorehead]

No you didn't. You posted a statement and like a single character later challenged it. That's like debating with yourself. Has it finally gotten to that point, KK?

Actually I found what he said to be pretty valid. He was right there is no reason Xbox Live Gold can't be free however if Microsoft can make the money from it then why should it be free?

Personally I don't mind paying the £50 a year because I know I'm getting a good service for my money. Lets face it Live Gold is a great service and £50 a year really isn't that much considering most MMORPGs are about £10-15 a month.

I'm also in the camp of not minding paying for DLC as long as it's worthwhile.

It is annoying to see companies putting out low quality DLC and asking for money for it, such as the Horse Armour or EAs making you pay to unlock things in the game but the key is to simply not pay for them. The less and less people who buy this sort of thing the more likely it'll be that Developers will have to start producing decent quality DLC.

[HeartBreakMan2k]

This whole concept baffles me. Should your internet be free because your computer is capable of running it? Should Cable be free because your house already has all the jacks to hook it up to your tv?

No, because it's a service that the companies are providing you. It cost them some money to run and operate XBOX live, they have every right to charge and should make a profit.

[DS]

If there were internet companies offering free service that does exactly what another companies service does would you rather pay for internet?

If there was a cable company that offered you the exact same TV stations for free would you rather pay for your cable?

Now if that's not enough, what if every other internet company and cable company was free except for one. You would rather pay for the service instead of getting the same thing from the other companies?

[Requiem]

I would much rather all DLC be free, and simply pay one annual fee for XBL Gold. I have no problem paying for a subscription service like XBL, but I have more of a problem having to buy DLC for a game that I already paid money for, and through a service that I'm also paying money for.

In that respect, if I have to pay for DLC I would rather not pay for the ability to play with other people since that's essentially all XBL Gold is. There's a lot of money changing hands here for one general purpose, and it's pretty ridiculous.

So basically, if I have to pay $50-some a year, I should get all DLC free. Likewise, if I have to pay for DLC I should get XBL free. Fuck, even up the price to $60 a year and give DLC for free. That way game companies can get a little bigger cut from the profits of XBL subscriptions.

[Kane Knight]

Actually I found what he said to be pretty valid. He was right there is no reason Xbox Live Gold can't be free however if Microsoft can make the money from it then why should it be free?

Personally I don't mind paying the £50 a year because I know I'm getting a good service for my money. Lets face it Live Gold is a great service and £50 a year really isn't that much considering most MMORPGs are about £10-15 a month.

I'm also in the camp of not minding paying for DLC as long as it's worthwhile.

It is annoying to see companies putting out low quality DLC and asking for money for it, such as the Horse Armour or EAs making you pay to unlock things in the game but the key is to simply not pay for them. The less and less people who buy this sort of thing the more likely it'll be that Developers will have to start producing decent quality DLC.

Thank you for not being retarded. :D

[Kane Knight]

This whole concept baffles me. Should your internet be free because your computer is capable of running it? Should Cable be free because your house already has all the jacks to hook it up to your tv?

No, because it's a service that the companies are providing you. It cost them some money to run and operate XBOX live, they have every right to charge and should make a profit.

The thing is, that's actually a disingenuous comparison. For example, XBL is kind of like paying to use the internet on top of paying for a computer and internet access, because that's what you're doing. Or paying for individual channels after paying for cable and a TV.

The other thing that I find puzzling is the notion that it's their right. Well yeah, but it's the consumer's right ot demand quality product and more bang for their buck.

Beyond that, I would assert that the right to do something does not always make it a prudent measure. In hopes that I will be able to avoid another Kalyx hissyfit, I'll qualify that by pointing out nobody is arguing they have no right, but rather questioning the wisdom of doing it.

Again, I find it a little baffling that consumers are so quick to piss away their own rights and priveleges in defense of companies that would gladly fleece you blind.

[Kane Knight]

If there were internet companies offering free service that does exactly what another companies service does would you rather pay for internet?


People do, though. They pay for internet when they can get it free, or pay more when they could get it for less. Part of it is that the free and cheap services suck. Granted, so does my cable ISP, Comcast, but they suck less than the alternatives. Now, if they were providing the same service for free that others were charging for, that'd be different, but back to the consoles, the internet services are not created equally.

Comparing the 360's XBL service to the Wii internet service or the PS3's service isn't even apples and oranges; they're barely in the same league. Nintendo's system is crippled, and PSN has demonstrated that freeware doesn't match a paid service. In other words, you get what you pay for. You pay nothing, you get a limited service that's not particularly good. I've played around with all, and I'm inclined to agree that Live is better. Probably worth the money.

And as trite as it is, you can boil that down to "you get what you pay for."

Now, back to the notion of "Why pay more?" Well, why do people pay so much more for proprietary music on iTunes than they would need to for straight MP3s at, say, eMusic, the second biggest digital distribution source? Or, for that matter, when they can hit up peer to peers for free? Albeit ilegally. People still buy music, and they tend to buy it from a more expensive, proprietary source.

Oh and sorry for the triple post, but I didn't want to multiquote posts I planned on making longish replies to.

[DS]

Granted, but here is what you're actually paying $50 a year for:


Play your Xbox 360 multiplayer games online with the premiere online gaming service.
Use the brand new TrueSkill™ Matchmaking system to play against opponents with similar skills, personalities, and gaming tastes.
Give player feedback to rate your teammates and opponents on their sportsmanship, abilities, and conduct to influence matchmaking.
Play select original Xbox® games online (the Xbox 360 Hard Drive is required).
Get access to exclusive Gold Member content.
Engage in video chat.


Comparing these features alone to what is available on the PS3, for free, there is barely no advantage at all. The PS3 lets you play against others for free. The TrueSkill system is so hidden in the system that it does nothing of value. If anyone would really want to pay $50 to rate other people, give me their names because I have some air in jars that I would love to sell to them. Only $20 a jar!

Everything offered there is available for free, same quality, on the PS3. Nintendo's online is laughable so I'm not even going to really mention it.

I understand the arguments and I pay the $50 a year to play with my friends. It's not a matter of not having the money or not being able to come up with it. That is a horrible argument. I would just much rather not have to pay for something that is given for free on other systems.

[Requiem]

Except the only real reason you pay for XBL is for multiplayer. While not as good as XBL or the Xbox 360 dashboard (and that's just the quality of the system, not the XBL service. Sometimes I wonder if people get XBL confused with the functionality of the dashboard), PSN and Wii still do it for free. You can still connect to other players and play with them. Except with XBL Silver, you can't do that. You have to pay simply to connect to another player.

Don't know about you but if it wasn't for the multiplayer aspect of XBL Gold, there was no way in hell I would pay for their so called 'extra' service that they provide with it. The only reason people pay for it is because they want to play with other people.

Edit: What DS said.

[Kane Knight]

Granted, but here is what you're actually paying $50 a year for:

Play your Xbox 360 multiplayer games online with the premiere online gaming service.
Use the brand new TrueSkill™ Matchmaking system to play against opponents with similar skills, personalities, and gaming tastes.
Give player feedback to rate your teammates and opponents on their sportsmanship, abilities, and conduct to influence matchmaking.
Play select original Xbox® games online (the Xbox 360 Hard Drive is required).
Get access to exclusive Gold Member content.
Engage in video chat.
Comparing these features alone to what is available on the PS3, for free, there is barely no advantage at all. The PS3 lets you play against others for free. The TrueSkill system is so hidden in the system that it does nothing of value. If anyone would really want to pay $50 to rate other people, give me their names because I have some air in jars that I would love to sell to them. Only $20 a jar!

Everything offered there is available for free, same quality, on the PS3. Nintendo's online is laughable so I'm not even going to really mention it.

I understand the arguments and I pay the $50 a year to play with my friends. It's not a matter of not having the money or not being able to come up with it. That is a horrible argument. I would just much rather not have to pay for something that is given for free on other systems.

Same quality? I'm yet to see anything of the same quality on PSN. They're both online services, but in the same sense that a dialup connection and a broadband connection are. The way Live is set up sets it apart from the current setup for PSN. I agree, I'd rather not pay for it, but thething is, it's not the same service. Live is a single platform that they have integrated directly into the dashboard. PSN offers online. Rather large difference. Worth the money to play online? well, it's not completely up to me to say. I paid for it, and you did too. Obviously, we find some merit in it.

[Kane Knight]

Beyond that, I would point out that the unified platform puts games to certain standards in terms of what's available when you play online, something that is not present in PS3 games. I mean, I don't generally use features like voice chat, but the fact that they're standard when you play a multiplayer game is a strong argument in favor.

[DS]

No merit, I had no other choice if I wanted to play with friends. And we are not paying for dashboard system. We are paying for the ability to connect to others. We don't get faster more reliable connections with the Live system or anything like that. We are simply getting the ability to connect to others.

[G]

i think they should drop live and let this multiplayer fad pass

[Extreme Angle]

dlc usually comes out free eventually

[Kane Knight]

No merit, I had no other choice if I wanted to play with friends. And we are not paying for dashboard system. We are paying for the ability to connect to others. We don't get faster more reliable connections with the Live system or anything like that. We are simply getting the ability to connect to others.

We're not paying for the dashboard system, but so what?

[Funky Fly]

They sold you their game for $60. That is reasonable. Why should they let you play on their service for free? Can you imagine the cost to connect as many people as there are on Gold tier Live on a single worldwide network? They are a business, so why should they swallow such a huge cost for something that doesn't really benefit them? Why isn't World of Warcraft free?

It's a fucking business. They will do what they can to please you as long as <blink>it is cost effective.</blink>

$50USD for a <blink>whole year</blink> is pretty good.

[Kane Knight]

They sold you their game for $60. That is reasonable. Why should they let you play on their service for free? Can you imagine the cost to connect as many people as there are on Gold tier Live on a single worldwide network? They are a business, so why should they swallow such a huge cost for something that doesn't really benefit them? Why isn't World of Warcraft free?

It's a fucking business. They will do what they can to please you as long as <b><blink>it is cost effective.</blink></b>

$50USD for a <b><blink>whole year</blink></b> is pretty good.

And at about 12 cents a day, assuming you paid the full price (You know, lacking the research skills to find it for like 30), the money you save by going for Playstation's online service could be applied to a gallon of tap water, a few seconds with the lights on, or one 12th of a cup of coffee...

[DS]

We are going to have to agree to disagree here then. If you believe it's reasonable to have someone pay $50 a year to play against other players then go for it.

[Kane Knight]

We are going to have to agree to disagree here then. If you believe it's reasonable to have someone pay $50 a year to play against other players then go for it.

Whether or not I agree with it, I cannot see a single reason why one would call a paid online service unreasonable. I can see arguments for why they should or shouldn't, whether or not it's a good idea, but whether or not it's reasonable?

[DS]

Ok.

[Kane Knight]

Can you explain why it's unreasonable?

[Kane Knight]

dlc usually comes out free eventually

I can only think of a couple such examples.

[Requiem]

It's stupid. The only reason they do it is because people -have- to buy it if they want to play with other people. So they know they can make money off of it. The only reason silver exists is because they still want people to have access to DLC which also costs money. Either way, they're getting money from people.

Paying $50 a year in order to play with other people is dumb. They disguise that behind these so called other 'features' to make it seem like you're getting more for your money, but you aren't.

If you don't see that as unreasonable then like he said, we'll have to agree to disagree. The main difference between PSN and XBL is that PSN doesn't disguise their service as something more and try to milk people for everything they can. It is essentially the same thing, but free.

It is in no way similar to internet providers. People don't choose free dial up over cable, because free dial up is shitty. Nobody is offering me free cable though.

PSN and XBL provide the same connectivity. Multiplayer. That's it. Xbox just has an advantage because of their library. If someone wants a certain type of game, they are almost forced to go with the 360, and thus forced to pay the fee if they want to then play with their friends.

That is unreasonable.

[ct2k]

Paying for things is wrong and thats all there is to it:mad:

[Kane Knight]

It's stupid. The only reason they do it is because people -have- to buy it if they want to play with other people. So they know they can make money off of it. The only reason silver exists is because they still want people to have access to DLC which also costs money. Either way, they're getting money from people.

Paying $50 a year in order to play with other people is dumb. They disguise that behind these so called other 'features' to make it seem like you're getting more for your money, but you aren't.

If you don't see that as unreasonable then like he said, we'll have to agree to disagree. The main difference between PSN and XBL is that PSN doesn't disguise their service as something more and try to milk people for everything they can. It is essentially the same thing, but free.

It is in no way similar to internet providers. People don't choose free dial up over cable, because free dial up is shitty. Nobody is offering me free cable though.

PSN and XBL provide the same connectivity. Multiplayer. That's it. Xbox just has an advantage because of their library. If someone wants a certain type of game, they are almost forced to go with the 360, and thus forced to pay the fee if they want to then play with their friends.

That is unreasonable.

It's essentially the same thing, but inferior. I don't even know exactly why there's any contention there. Finding a game when playing PS3 is almost painful (And imagine how painful it'll get when the games have been around for a while, and go on the chopping block...), when you can get games going at all. And again, none of what you're saying is really unreasonable. You're not being charged an unreasonable fee, and a fee to keep such a service going, even if all you add is multiplayer, is not unreasonable. Undesirable, perhaps, but not unreasonable. Do you think it's unreasonable for WoW to charge a monthly fee when Guild Wars does not? It would be a similar scenario, where a similar service is offered, though one charges and the other does not.

In fact, your argument seems unreasonable. Arguing that you're forced to buy 360 titles or forced to pay to play online being unreasonable seems more like an argument of dissatisfaction, not an indictment of the reason behind it. In other words, "I don't want to" rather than an actual argument as to why it's unreasonable. I'd wager it's why you call it "dumb," Req. You don't like it, but again, that doesn't make it unreasonable. Undesirable, maybe a bad idea, but not inherently unreasonable.

[DS]

I really tried my best to not reply to any of this because we are headed in a dead end.

The ability and ease of use of the Live system is not what you're paying for. Finding games online in both the 360 or the PS3 has nothing to do what you're paying for. This system is included in the original purchase price of the console. When you sign up for your Gold account, you are basically paying to solely allow your 360 to interact with someone elses 360. This is unreasonable because there is absolutely no reason to charge for this service. This service has been free, not including the price of your internet connection, on PC for years.

If Microsoft hosted servers for the games that included online multiplayer then, yes, I would think it would be reasonable to pay for service. But they don't! World of Warcraft, along with most other MMOs, require a monthly fee because they need to pay for the servers that run the game. Your examples cannot be compared, although close. Guild Wars free play is more an extra benefit because, as stated earlier, majority of MMOs cost a monthly fee.

If the 360, the Wii, and PC games cost extra to connect to other players and the PS3 still allowed free multiplayer, then I would agree that it would be a reasonable price and the PS3's multiplayer would be a benefit.

It's unreasonable to believe that we should be paying so that we can play against each other when it has been proven that there is no need for this fee the entire competition. We are not paying for the buddy lists, quick join options, Live blades, press the gem to open your panel, etc etc. We are essentially paying $50 a year so that we can do the same exact thing that the PC, PS3, and Wii let us do for free.

[Requiem]

As an addition to the WoW vs. Guild Wars comparison. Guild Wars makes their money through expansions as opposed to offering free updates frequently as most subscription based MMOs do. With Guild Wars, if you want the new content you have to buy an expansion. WoW charges a monthly fee and offers frequent updates with a lot of content added, and it is included in the price you pay.

In that respect, if XBL included DLC with your annual fee. IE - you pay a fee, and get the added content for free. Then it could be compared with WoW. And there wouldn't be an issue with it, I feel.

Where as WoW has only had 1 expansion, and 1 planned, both of which add MAJOR content upgrades all at once. Those balance out. One includes content with the fee, and the other has no fee but charges separately for content.

In that respect, XBL could better be compared to Everquest 1, where you pay a subscription fee, AND have to buy expansions every 6 months or so in order to get new content. It's stupid, and the game has somewhere around 14 or more expansions now, each of which cost a pretty penny when they first came out. It was also unreasonable, but they did it anyways.

[Funky Fly]

Once again, it's business, and it's not that expensive, as Mr. Knight just showed you. No one's forcing you to play, so if you don't like it then enjoy your free (and supposedly) service from Sony and Nintendo and your so called balanced service from Guild Wars and WoW.

Simple as that.

[Kane Knight]

Once again, it's business, and it's not that expensive, as Mr. Knight just showed you. No one's forcing you to play, so if you don't like it then enjoy your free (and supposedly) service from Sony and Nintendo and your so called balanced service from Guild Wars and WoW.

Simple as that.

And nothing yet has actually indicated anything unreasonable. I don't want to pay money to play online, either, but that doesn't make it unreasonable to ask.

[Kalyx triaD]

- For XBL, you're paying little more than $3 a month. Few other 'connectivity' services go near that price point (and that's a modest statement seeing as how I actually can't think of any). Maybe it could be free but since it isn't; three dollars.

-XBL > PSN > WiiFi. And sad part on Wii's end is that it has multiplayer offerings loved by all, run on a half-assed online network held down by, of all things, cultural beliefs. And Sony cut the air supply to their brain about 2 years ago.

- KK, me sorry.

[Kane Knight]

Another point I'd like to make is that with the exception of EA games (and ONLY EA games, far as I can tell), you will have connectivity for as long as other people are playing the games, provided Live is up. Really popular titles get dedicated servers, but you don't lose the game just because the game isn't as popular anymore. Far as I can tell, PSN does not offer that "service" on their free network, and has no plans to.

I'm just imagining Warhawk in a couple of years, since it's pretty much designed for online, when it's no longer financially viable to keep things going.

[Requiem]

This whole 'it's a business' argument is stupid. Sony and Nintendo are businesses too and I guarantee Sony needs money more than Microsoft.

So we'll just agree to disagree.

[Kane Knight]

Sony definitely needs the business more than Microsoft right now in this sense. Microsoft is the dominant competition (Note I'm not saying it's outselling the Wii; rather, I'm saying the Wii is not their primary competitor), which has more sales, a better profit margin (Or a lower loss margin) and a better attach rate. They literally have to offer some sort of incentive, and they've been loading the PS3 with as much as they possibly can. The PSN is just another outreach of that. Sony's being left in the dust and cannot afford to do what Microsoft is doing. That's also why Sony's trying to cut down the cost of their units. It's why they're doing a lot of what they're doing, because they're trying hard to make their system viable.

By the way, Req. If you're going to "agree to disagree," do so. Don't go saying things are stupid, arguing, and then say "Agree to disagree." It's hypocritical and ridiculous.

[Requiem]

It's also somewhat hard to 'agree' to anything when the other person keeps arguing the point afterwards, when it is blatantly obvious neither opinion is going to be changed. Hence the term - We'll agree to disagree. A concession from both parties involved without continuing afterwards.

Which brings up the point that it's a bit hypocritical to call the other person out on not dropping a point, while refusing to drop it yourself.

Hell, I wasn't even bringing up new arguments. Only arguing those that had been brought up and had no merit.

[Funky Fly]

<blink>This whole 'it's a business' argument is stupid. Sony and Nintendo are businesses too and I guarantee Sony needs money more than Microsoft.</blink>

<blink>Sony definitely needs the business more than Microsoft right now in this sense. Microsoft is the dominant competition (Note I'm not saying it's outselling the Wii; rather, I'm saying the Wii is not their primary competitor), which has more sales, a better profit margin (Or a lower loss margin) and a better attach rate. They literally have to offer some sort of incentive, and they've been loading the PS3 with as much as they possibly can. The PSN is just another outreach of that. Sony's being left in the dust and cannot afford to do what Microsoft is doing. That's also why Sony's trying to cut down the cost of their units. It's why they're doing a lot of what they're doing, because they're trying hard to make their system viable.</blink>

This is a big point that probably isn't going to get a whole lot of attention unless It gets highlighted, so pardon the minor edits to these posts.

Fact is Sony got big-headed and thought they could outdo the competition on HD bells and whistles alone, while still charging $200 more than the competition. All the HD configurations in the world couldn't save them from falling into third place in hardware sales and pissing off developers.

In fact, all of Sony's current problems are of their own making: The afformentioned expensive feature loading which drove up the cost of the system. The shitty initial developer kits which hamstringed multiplatform games. Ripping off proprietary hardware in the Dualshock controllers which ended up costing them millions AND forced them to turn to another rip off in Sixaxis, which most people don't really care for, meaning they have to work with the company they shat on to make new Dualshock controller (despite playing big initially).

I'm sure there's more, but I have errands to do.

[Kane Knight]

It's also somewhat hard to 'agree' to anything when the other person keeps arguing the point afterwards, when it is blatantly obvious neither opinion is going to be changed. Hence the term - We'll agree to disagree. A concession from both parties involved without continuing afterwards.

Which brings up the point that it's a bit hypocritical to call the other person out on not dropping a point, while refusing to drop it yourself.

Hell, I wasn't even bringing up new arguments. Only arguing those that had been brought up and had no merit.

Except I'm not the one who's insisting on an agreement to disagree. I'm also not the hypocrite. Every time you talk about dropping it, you bring it back up. Practice what you preach. Don't argue that you're too childish to live up to what you have said just because I'm not "living up" to an agreement I never agreed to in the first place. And don't bring up an argument in the same post as the concept, because that's blatant hypocrisy.

I'm not going to concede my point. I think it's stupid to expect that, especially when you're calling other points of view stupid yourself. I'm not going to stop the "argument," because I'm looking for anything that is actually unreasonable, something you've actually failed to point out. But then, it's unreasonable to expect someone to bow out gracefully while you're still attacking the argument (as calling it stupid was doing).

[Kane Knight]

This is a big point that probably isn't going to get a whole lot of attention unless It gets highlighted, so pardon the minor edits to these posts.

Fact is Sony got big-headed and thought they could outdo the competition on HD bells and whistles alone, while still charging $200 more than the competition. All the HD configurations in the world couldn't save them from falling into third place in hardware sales and pissing off developers.

In fact, all of Sony's current problems are of their own making: The afformentioned expensive feature loading which drove up the cost of the system. The shitty initial developer kits which hamstringed multiplatform games. Ripping off proprietary hardware in the Dualshock controllers which ended up costing them millions AND forced them to turn to another rip off in Sixaxis, which most people don't really care for, meaning they have to work with the company they shat on to make new Dualshock controller (despite playing big initially).

I'm sure there's more, but I have errands to do.

Though to be fair, PS3 is still the top rated BRD player on a lot of sites, which means that it probably is selling on those features alone. The major problem being that those numbers are never going to stack up to what they need. They pissed off everyone, and now they need to do everything they can to get people back. Bundled discs. Free Blu Ray movies. Larger and larger hard drives. Though that one is probably gonna backfire on them, since they keep switching the systems around. They've slashed prives, and they have to be losing a lot of money in the process, even though the PS3 is cheaper to make now. Meanwhile, Microsoft has had to do sweet fuck all. It's sold brilliantly and everyone wants the games. If Sony charged for their online service, they'd be even more fucked than they are now, so they don't. It's an incentive. And even then, it has the majo flaw that online games will only be supported for as long as it's profitable. Those servers will die, and the games will be useless, and Microsoft's service will still allow most games of comparable age to be playable. I dunno, but that alone seems like it's worth a couple bucks a month.

And again, it's not even so much like I want to pay the money, I'm just saying it's not unreasonable.

(Plus, and I seriously wonder how people don't notice this, I was arguing both sides of the argument. I'm amused that I've been told my mind's not gonna be changed and all that ridiculous crap when I've argued both sides against the other. It's just that the argument became one sided, and there was no point to arguing the dominant side...)

[Requiem]

The 'stupid' comment was uncalled for. I'll concede that.

DS and I were the only people really arguing that it was unreasonable, and both of us seemed to be pretty set on stopping. So if both people being argued with mean to stop, why continue except to goad a response from one of us. You can't act like I'm a hypocrite when you clearly wanted a response.

And in no way or form did I bring up a specific argument in that post. Nor did I refer to a specific argument. It was a generalized statement about the way things had been going. And nowhere did I ever say that you were arguing one side - IE; that you were in favor of paying for the service. But you have never argued in favor of the fact that it is unreasonable which is our 'side' of the argument.

And I'll admit now, at this point, I am refusing to drop the subject, because you've done what you do best - and that's to get people to argue with you.

But let's look at the definition of unreasonable, and then look at what I've said throughout this whole thread.

un·rea·son·a·ble http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Funreasonable) /ʌnˈrihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngzəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngbəl, -ˈrizhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngnə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-ree-zuh-nuh-buhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, -reez-nuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">1.</td><td valign="top">not reasonable or rational; acting at variance with or contrary to reason; not guided by reason or sound judgment; irrational: an unreasonable person. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">2.</td><td valign="top">not in accordance with practical realities, as attitude or behavior; inappropriate: His Bohemianism was an unreasonable way of life for one so rich. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">3.</td><td valign="top">excessive, immoderate, or exorbitant; unconscionable: an unreasonable price; unreasonable demands. </td></tr></tbody></table> <table class="luna-Ent"><tbody><tr><td class="dn" valign="top">4.</td><td valign="top">not having the faculty of reason.</td></tr></tbody></table>

I'd say number 3 suits the situation perfectly. Possibly even a little of number 1 as well. The price is excessive, immoderate, and exorbitant. It is unreasonable to expect such a fee while not providing equal or better service than someone who provides the same. You have to pay additional fees for more content, on top of what you paid for an internet-ready system, and on top of the price of a game you paid money for already.

If you notice, I even said that I would not find it unreasonable to ask for a fee for XBL if DLC was included. Likewise, if I didn't have to pay for the ability to connect to other people, but had to pay for all the DLC I got then I would be fine with that. It would be reasonable to expect some payment for the service then. But that's not what they want.

Asking to pay more on top of that just to be able to play with other people is then excessive. It's immoderate, its exorbitant. Microsoft is being unreasonable in their request.

[Requiem]

Which brings me to ask why you don't want to spend the money, yet don't think that is unreasonable.

If you were fine with it, even thought you SHOULD pay for it, then I could see a definite reason behind not thinking it was unreasonable. Because you thought it was alright. But you have said multiple times now that you personally are not saying you -want- to pay for it.

$50 is NOT a lot of money, so why don't you want to pay that. The only reason I can think of to not want to pay that $50 a year is because it is an unreasonable request on their part.

[Kane Knight]

There's a difference between "I don't want to pay" and "it's unreasonable."

It's not unreasonable to charge for a service. As a charge for a service, fifty bucks a year is not unreasonable. I don't want to pay it because I'm ridiculously cheap. I pay it because it's not unreasonable. I mean, you consider that I spent almost a year without the paid service, and didn't really care that I couldn't play online, I'm not going to lose any sleep if I don't pay for it. But now that I have Rock Band especially, I want to be online. I pay because 12 cents a day isn't bad, even if I've only used it like twice so far. Free would be a better price, yes, but better doesn't automatically translate into reasonable.

In fact, I'd say the notion that a service should have to be free is unreasonable, given definitions one and two up there.

I'd also say that the fact that they have so many subscribers would indicate that the market deemed it reasonable, but I will concede that consumers are generally fucking morons. Most consumers lack any practical sense of the value of the dollar, and most don't make informed decisions.

In fact, one of my biggest beefs with Live is the Marketplace, where much of the content is overpriced, crippled by usage limitations, etc. And yet, people buy the shit. They also tend to bitch about the prices ( "I can't believe I only got three maps...Sure, that's what was advertised, and I paid for it, but I FEEL RIPPED OFF!"), but they buy the shit. I can't completely complain, because I do buy items on VBLM, but only things that offer value to me. I still haven't bought the Mass Effect adventure, because I don't really feel the value is worth it. I'll put down two bucks a song for Rock Band, though, and I do so because I thoroughly enjoy the game and feel the content is worth the price.

But I've gone a little off the beaten path here. I'd rather not because I'm a thrifty consumer. I don't think it's unreasonable because while I'd prefer it to be free, it doesn't hamper me in any way that I really find to be a problematic deal. I want to play online, I pay a few pennies a day to do so. It'd be nice if this was free, and it'd be nice if everything was, but since I'm going to pay only a few cents a day, it's not unreasonable. Compare that to single game online fees that are upwards of ten bucks a month, and it doesn't seem remotely unreasonable. Or services that mandate subscriptions elsewhere on the web.