Ok.

Can you explain why it's unreasonable?

I can only think of a couple such examples.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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...)

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/g...una/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif /ʌnˈrihttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.pngzəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.pngnəhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.pngbəl, -ˈrizhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/thinsp.pngnə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhn-ree-zuh-nuh-buhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/g...una/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.

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.

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.