Why should Xbox Live and DLC be free?
 

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.

Completely agree.

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

Free is free. More beer for me!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"I should be PAID to download this shit!"

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.

Please do.

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?

Nice non-post.

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

Until then, I asked a valid question.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Thank you for not being retarded. :D

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

dlc usually comes out free eventually

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

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.

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...

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?