Convince me.

[radgamer420]

I'm saying its a better value and objectively a better service cost wise.

Ok I figured that was most likely what you were saying but was just trying to be sure. So yeah then I agree with you 100 percent about cost. Being free of course makes it better cost wise . But that doesn't make it a better service. It would have to be equal to Live as well as free in order for that to be true. And its not. If it was then everybody would be flocking to PSN and Live would be a dismal failure. But that isnt whats happening obviously. Sorry I took so long to edit my response but I came across this again just now and realized I didnt read your post close enough the first time.

[radgamer420]

I wonder how many people will actually subscribe to Live it online game play is free as it shouldve been. Answers not many.

I think the success of Live shows that gamers are willing to pay something for a better online service. And if what youre saying was true and PSN was just as good then everybody would be flocking to PSN and Live would be going down in flames. Also I've never had to pay full price for Xbox Live. I'm paying about $3.00 and some change a month for the next 3 months and before that I paid $2.00 for 2 months.

[MacP]

After looking online I'm almost tempted to buy an entirely new Xbox... The new ones sound so much better than my old Elite.

I'd say stick with your elite and buy a gold live account, if you need to do a hard drive upgrade later on do that, it will be so much cheaper than buying a whole new console.

[F34R]

I wonder how many people will actually subscribe to Live it online game play is free as it shouldve been. Answers not many.

Your answer is not very secure. If they put online play, basic, as a freebie... gamers will still pay for the much feature standard Live online play service, plus all the other benefits. It's not hard to understand that most people don't know what type of features are integrated into the service, OS, etc.

[radgamer420]

Its not irrelevant to me. Discounted Live is available to everyone. And lots of people even just on this forum alone get discounted Live so no it isnt just me. And if somebody else isnt savvy enough to shop around or call MS for promotions then thats their fault. For just a few bucks a month sometimes only 2 bucks I enjoy an online service that is much better than PSN. Worth every cent. PSN to me just seems barren and very bare bones and has no x game chat which is a feature I enjoy and its easier to invite friends and the downloads are light years faster on Live for me. Games like MS Apocolypse dont even work online half the time because of server errors. But I've never had any problems playing online MP with any games on Live. Again if PSN was equal to Live people would indeed be flocking to PSN since its free. But PSN is not equal to Live. Thats a fact.

[F34R]

Besides the fact that you have to buy a new console. Cant play games you already bought. And cant play with friends who are already on Live. and etc. You call those market barriers. If those didnt exist. Then yes, XBL will go down in flames. As you for not having to pay full price almost irrelevant unless you are saying that everyone else on live is paying the same amount.



Most people dont understand what type of features are integrated cause they dont care that much. However, one feature they do know is online play. Meaning thats the feature that they are interested most. If MS thought that people will still subscribe to Live without online play, why dont they make online free? Again, simply because people wont subscribe it it was free.

Msofts marketing helps them in that department. While they may not care about the list of features, it helps sell a product when the benefits of having that service is marketed well.

[Cuguy]

Most people dont understand what type of features are integrated cause they dont care that much. However, one feature they do know is online play. Meaning thats the feature that they are interested most. If MS thought that people will still subscribe to Live without online play, why dont they make online free? Again, simply because people wont subscribe it it was free.

Your logic fails.

People pay for PS+ Why? Free games? They aren't free.. you are paying for the service. Plus, you only rent games, not actually buy them because if you let the PS+ sub go, the games you got for "free" are no longer licensed and you can't play. People pay for that service to get games early, demos early, free games, but they pay. Online play is still free, but yet they pay.

People pay for Live because of all the benefits THEY see in it. If online play was free, MS (like Sony) could still load up Gold with attractive offers and still get subscribers.

It costs me less than 2 dollars a month to have Live. Worth every penny

[Spacedeck]

People pay for PS+ Why? Free games? They aren't free.. you are paying for the service. Plus, you only rent games, not actually buy them because if you let the PS+ sub go, the games you got for "free" are no longer licensed and you can't play. People pay for that service to get games early, demos early, free games, but they pay. Online play is still free, but yet they pay.

People pay for Live because of all the benefits THEY see in it. If online play was free, MS (like Sony) could still load up Gold with attractive offers and still get subscribers.

It's a bit cheap saying we can only keep bit for as long as we sub but if they didn't they would lose money. But I see it also that in the long run if you keep subbed you do save a good sum of money. But then again I pay 6 quid for NetFlix, 15 quid for LoveFilm, then I still am subbed to live and ps+. Maybe some would say I waste my money but I don't see it that way as they all do get used.

[Cuguy]

It's a bit cheap saying we can only keep bit for as long as we sub but if they didn't they would lose money. But I see it also that in the long run if you keep subbed you do save a good sum of money. But then again I pay 6 quid for NetFlix, 15 quid for LoveFilm, then I still am subbed to live and ps+. Maybe some would say I waste my money but I don't see it that way as they all do get used.

yeah, it comes down to me paying for what I want rather than bemoaning what I don't have.

I pay 30 a year for Live, and I get to use all of the Gold features without question. PS+ hasn't gotten my money, and won't, because it doesn't offer anything to me that I need on the PS3.

[Soldier 95B]

]Most people dont understand[/B] what type of features are integrated cause they dont care that much.

When did you have the opportunity to survey every gamer? I would love to see your research papers.

[Spacedeck]

People pay for PS+ Why? Free games? They aren't free.. you are paying for the service. Plus, you only rent games, not actually buy them because if you let the PS+ sub go, the games you got for "free" are no longer licensed and you can't play. People pay for that service to get games early, demos early, free games, but they pay. Online play is still free, but yet they pay.

People pay for Live because of all the benefits THEY see in it. If online play was free, MS (like Sony) could still load up Gold with attractive offers and still get subscribers.

It's a bit cheap saying we can only keep bit for as long as we sub but if they didn't they would lose money. But I see it also that in the long run if you keep subbed you do save a good sum of money. But then again I pay 6 quid for NetFlix, 15 quid for LoveFilm, then I still am subbed to live and ps+. Maybe some would say I waste my money but I don't see it that way as they all do get used.

[Vulgotha]

Your logic fails.

People pay for PS+ Why? Free games? They aren't free.. you are paying for the service. Plus, you only rent games, not actually buy them because if you let the PS+ sub go, the games you got for "free" are no longer licensed and you can't play. People pay for that service to get games early, demos early, free games, but they pay. Online play is still free, but yet they pay.

People pay for Live because of all the benefits THEY see in it. If online play was free, MS (like Sony) could still load up Gold with attractive offers and still get subscribers.

It costs me less than 2 dollars a month to have Live. Worth every penny

Yea, but by that same token this applies to all XBLA games doesn't it? If you're not connected online you don't get to play these games, they revert to demos.

So it isn't quite so black and white there.

Although I assume you can still play them if you have silver? (barring any kind of online gold features I guess). Still, is that really "owning" the game? It kind of justifies the fear people have with digital only distribution.

Related: I love STEAM!

[Soldier 95B]

Yea, but by that same token this applies to all XBLA games doesn't it? If you're not connected online you don't get to play these games, they revert to demos.

So it isn't quite so black and white there.

Although I assume you can still play them if you have silver? (barring any kind of online gold features I guess). Still, is that really "owning" the game? It kind of justifies the fear people have with digital only distribution.

Related: I love STEAM!

The only time they (XBLA) would revert to demo status playing offline is if you bought a new Xbox and didn't transfer the license. We play our GOD and XBLA and INDIE titles offline in their entirety in our RV when camping all the time. As long as you have a working console, the games will always play even if you don't use Xbox Live (and as long as you transfer the license to a new Xbox if you replaced it).

[Yungstar 2006]

if youre trying to say that PSN is a better value then I'm with you. PSN with PS+ is a much better value for your money than XBL gold imo.

one of the things i like about LIVE over PSN with or without + is that every game has a try before i buy, with PS3.... not so.

just one of the many things that add to the value of LIVE for me, im not paying for a game i may not like.

[radgamer420]

one of the things i like about LIVE over PSN with or without + is that every game has a try before i buy, with PS3.... not so. just one of the many things that add to the value of LIVE for me, im not paying for a game i may not like.

Yeah I agree with you. I love the try before you buy feature with Live. I dont have to worry about buyers remorse.

[Vulgotha]

The only time they (XBLA) would revert to demo status playing offline is if you bought a new Xbox and didn't transfer the license. We play our GOD and XBLA and INDIE titles offline in their entirety in our RV when camping all the time. As long as you have a working console, the games will always play even if you don't use Xbox Live (and as long as you transfer the license to a new Xbox if you replaced it).

Aaaaah OK gotcha.

[Lethal_NFS]

PS+ hasn't gotten my money, and won't, because it doesn't offer anything to me that I need on the PS3.

That is because Sony does not make you pay extra to use what is on your PS3. If Xbox owners want to watch Hulu or Youtube, etc. They MUST pay for the gold service. Sony does not put in a position where you feel like you do not have a choice. Sony lets you enjoy everything. This is why Sony gets my money for PS+.

[Yungstar 2006]

Sony does not put in a position where you feel like you do not have a choice. Sony lets you enjoy everything. This is why Sony gets my money for PS+.

and when your 1st year is up, will you be making use of your "choice" and not pay £40 for free games and auto updates?

[Soldier 95B]

you start off argument saying "your logic fails" but your argument literally has none. PSN+? not sure where that comes from. Just sounds like a bait, but w/e.

We can try this again. Would appreciate some logic.

If MS thought that people will still subscribe to Live without online play, why dont they make online free? Again, simply because people wont subscribe it it was free.

Uber interesting 4th post.

[F34R]

That is because Sony does not make you pay extra to use what is on your PS3. If Xbox owners want to watch Hulu or Youtube, etc. They MUST pay for the gold service. Sony does not put in a position where you feel like you do not have a choice. Sony lets you enjoy everything. This is why Sony gets my money for PS+.

Yes, people need to subscribe to the Gold membership to use the features provided for that. You have a choice. Not sure why you'd mention Sony doesn't put you in a position... they do. You don't get the PS+ discounts, games, etc., unless you pay and subscribe to PS+. It's a choice too... so, neither console makes you feel like you don't have a choice.

[Cuguy]

Uber interesting 4th post.

I thought that too :P

The logic is sound, but to quote him "w/e"

[Lethal_NFS]

Yes, people need to subscribe to the Gold membership to use the features provided for that. You have a choice. Not sure why you'd mention Sony doesn't put you in a position... they do. You don't get the PS+ discounts, games, etc., unless you pay and subscribe to PS+. It's a choice too... so, neither console makes you feel like you don't have a choice.

Sounds like you are interpreting my words in your own way to try and justify why Microsoft makes you feel like you MUST pay for gold. Sony does not make you feel like you MUST pay for anything. Unless you want lots of free shit lol.

No matter how hard you try to make it look like they both try to force you to pay for their service, Microsoft hands down does the best job of that. By stripping you of all the services Sony lets you use without an extra fee.

Seriously man. It is easily the biggest no brainer as to which company milks their consumers the most.

With that said, I say to save your $60 and stick to the free PSN service.

[F34R]

Sounds like you are interpreting my words in your own way to try and justify why Microsoft makes you feel like you MUST pay for gold. Sony does not make you feel like you MUST pay for anything. Unless you want lots of free shit lol.

No matter how hard you try to make it look like they both try to force you to pay for their service, Microsoft hands down does the best job of that. By stripping you of all the services Sony lets you use without an extra fee.

Seriously man. It is easily the biggest no brainer as to which company milks their consumers the most.

With that said, I say to save your $60 and stick to the free PSN service.

lol. I don't need to justify what Microsoft offers to consumers. If Sony had the features that Microsoft has, they'd be charging their users too. There's your "no brainer".

Btw, I can pay my Live fee's for both Xbox 360's and still use the PSN for free. Playing online doesn't have anything to do with a network that Sony owns.

[Lethal_NFS]

lol. I don't need to justify what Microsoft offers to consumers. If Sony had the features that Microsoft has, they'd be charging their users too. There's your "no brainer".

And yet they do not....

Sorry, but Microsoft had Netflix for a long time and always made you pay for gold. Long before all the other apps showed up.

[F34R]

Ok, took me a while, so correct me if I'm wrong here....

There's no real benefit from things being put into Gold memberships when all users should get them for free...?