The Xbox One Thread - One X & One SXBOne

[cuco33]

I have both systems so it wouldnt be jumping ship.

Ill be getting both next gen.

Same here. Multiconsole ownership FTW

If GT6 is a PS3 title, it will prevent me from jumping into next gen on a new Sony platform right away though.

 

[Jawehawk]

You also forget that some of the features that Live charges for, Sony also charge for (as you don't get early access to some demos, additional discount and cloud storage for free with either).

If playing online on the 360 was free, and all the extra features demanded payment, I wouldn't complain about it. Granted, there's still no reason things like Party Chat should be subscription based, but playing online is the most important factor. As for PS Plus. You pay a certain amount of money to get free stuff with a combined value that is higher than what you pay. And you don't miss out on content in games, if you don't have it. There lies the key difference. If you don't have Xbox Live, you miss out on a ton of content.

Why doesn't it have anything to do with the on-line service?

Because that is about the interface. Different games have different ways of inviting people. PSN does not prevent you from inviting friends into games.

I'm paying money for a mixture of things, a small number of which are free on other services and some which are not free on other services, please keep in mind that.

As for being dumb for using that argument, what people chose to pay for is entirely subjective and as such its not dumb, its simply not an argument you subscribe to. I have both services (including PSN Plus) and could limit my on-line games to the PS3, however I pay for Live and don't have an issue with doing so (does that make me dumb), as I can personally see the difference in the service it provides and for me it offers value. If I get value from what I pay for how can that be dumb?

I do not think that you, or anyone else, is dumb for having that opinion. I do, however, think it's a ludacris arguement as to why charging for Live is alright. If I have in any way offended you or anyone else on that, I sincerely apologise. Honestly wasn't my intention. The main problem is that you and everyone else paying for Live, are essentially sending out the message to companies that such business if completely fine. This then bites the rest of us in the butt later on.

Consider that the future of gaming might be a flood of microtransactions for every single little thing, aside from the original price that you pay for the product. Is that the way to want it to be?

Is it really fair that if I buy a game for the 360, I can't use half its features because I don't want to pay for features in Xbox Live that I have no interest in using? I'm already paying for my internet. So why should I pay an additional fee to use it?

 

[Luminis]

If playing online on the 360 was free, and all the extra features demanded payment, I wouldn't complain about it. Granted, there's still no reason things like Party Chat should be subscription based, but playing online is the most important factor.

So, if the Party Chat has no reason to be subscription based, what reason is there for Sony to have none, at all? I, for one, prefer paying for something I want than to not get it at all. Also, there actually is a reason it's not free. PC programs like Skype are making money by advertising. The XBL Party Chat doesn't.

 

[Jawehawk]

So, if the Party Chat has no reason to be subscription based, what reason is there for Sony to have none, at all? I, for one, prefer paying for something I want than to not get it at all. Also, there actually is a reason it's not free. PC programs like Skype are making money by advertising. The XBL Party Chat doesn't.

To be honest, I doubt the PS3 would be able to handle party chat while also playing a game. Could be wrong though. Basing that theory on the fact that the system struggles to even go to the XMB when playing a game. Xbox Live already features plenty of advitising. Shoving it into Party Chat would seem a bit overkill.

I have Skype open on my PC at the moment, and I can't see any advitisements. Other services like Teamspeak, only requires one person to pay for a server. Works great.

Again, the problem is that everyone is forced to pay for features they might not be interested in, just so they can use all the content in the games that they buy. And that is foul play.

 

[Scaff]

If playing online on the 360 was free, and all the extra features demanded payment, I wouldn't complain about it. Granted, there's still no reason things like Party Chat should be subscription based, but playing online is the most important factor. As for PS Plus. You pay a certain amount of money to get free stuff with a combined value that is higher than what you pay. And you don't miss out on content in games, if you don't have it. There lies the key difference. If you don't have Xbox Live, you miss out on a ton of content.

You don;t get anything free in PS Plus, you effectively rent the titles while you subscribe, end you substitution and you can no longer access them. I quite like PS Plus but lets be honest about it, the 'free' games side of it is actually a rental service in which you have no choice in the titles. I've got my moneys worth out of it, but that doesn't change the fact that I am paying for what I am getting.

Because that is about the interface. Different games have different ways of inviting people. PSN does not prevent you from inviting friends into games.

Are you sure you know how these work on Live?

You can start a party group outside of a game, start the game and then bring the party along, that would make it part of the on-line system not the game.

I do not think that you, or anyone else, is dumb for having that opinion. I do, however, think it's a ludacris arguement as to why charging for Live is alright. If I have in any way offended you or anyone else on that, I sincerely apologise. Honestly wasn't my intention. The main problem is that you and everyone else paying for Live, are essentially sending out the message to companies that such business if completely fine. This then bites the rest of us in the butt later on.

And if you disagree that such practices are not fine then don't use them, however that doesn't mean that others can't. Its a personal choice.

Consider that the future of gaming might be a flood of microtransactions for every single little thing, aside from the original price that you pay for the product. Is that the way to want it to be?

Given Sony already have a deep love of micro-transactions I don't think you can really blame Live for opening that floodgate can you. I mean Home managed that all by itself.

Is it really fair that if I buy a game for the 360, I can't use half its features because I don't want to pay for features in Xbox Live that I have no interest in using? I'm already paying for my internet. So why should I pay an additional fee to use it?

Fair has nothing to do with it, its a choice and as such you decide what you want to do, that doesn't mean its wrong or unfair or lacks respect.

 

[Luminis]

To be honest, I doubt the PS3 would be able to handle party chat while also playing a game. Could be wrong though. Basing that theory on the fact that the system struggles to even go to the XMB when playing a game. Xbox Live already features plenty of advitising. Shoving it into Party Chat would seem a bit overkill.

I have Skype open on my PC at the moment, and I can't see any advitisements. Other services like Teamspeak, only requires one person to pay for a server. Works great.

I haven't seen more advertising on XBL for content that isn't related to XBL - I at least can't remember doing so. So, no external influx of money. My Skype just displayed an ad for a German ISP, by the way.

As for the limitations of the PS3, that's just a matter of priorities. Games could be designed to leave enough resources unused to get a Party Chat going. Not like the Xbox360 does it any other way.

Again, the problem is that everyone is forced to pay for features they might not be interested in, just so they can use all the content in the games that they buy. And that is foul play.

You're buying a package. Whether you like the contents is entirely up to you. Nobody's forcing you to pay for something you don't want. You can always opt-out. If you couldn't and nobody told you about it beforehand, that'd be foul play.

 

[Jawehawk]

You don;t get anything free in PS Plus, you effectively rent the titles while you subscribe, end you substitution and you can no longer access them. I quite like PS Plus but lets be honest about it, the 'free' games side of it is actually a rental service in which you have no choice in the titles. I've got my moneys worth out of it, but that doesn't change the fact that I am paying for what I am getting.

Exactly. With PS Plus, you get what you pay for. With Live, you get some nice features, and access to the other half of the content in the games that you buy. Content, that on every single other platform, is availible to you free of charge. And a few of the things on PS Plus is your to keep forever.

And the most important part, is that PS Plus does not interfere with your online gaming experience in any way. it's entirely optional, and won't keep you from enjoying all the content of games you have purchased.

Are you sure you know how these work on Live?

You can start a party group outside of a game, start the game and then bring the party along, that would make it part of the on-line system not the game.


And if you disagree that such practices are not fine then don't use them, however that doesn't mean that others can't. Its a personal choice.

Did not know that. For the current generation, I have no problem with a company charging for such a service. Should be free on the next generations, simply because it has become mainstream. But it's no excuse for charging consumers who only want to use all the content in their games.

Given Sony already have a deep love of micro-transactions I don't think you can really blame Live for opening that floodgate can you. I mean Home managed that all by itself.

Home is again optional, and it doesn't keep you from playing any games. Xbox Live is also optional, but not paying for it, means missing out on a ton of content in games. It seems as I can't make that point enough.
I don't blame MS for microtransactions. I was merely giving an example of what could happen when people continue to support these kinds of business strategies.

Fair has nothing to do with it, its a choice and as such you decide what you want to do, that doesn't mean its wrong or unfair or lacks respect.

By withholding half of the content in games, Microsoft is essentially pressuring 360's players into subscriping to Live. Sure, they still have a choice. But it's a choice between not playing online games and the games that require internet for certain single player features, or to pay the subscription fee's. And that is BS.

I haven't seen more advertising on XBL for content that isn't related to XBL - I at least can't remember doing so. So, no external influx of money. My Skype just displayed an ad for a German ISP, by the way.

As for the limitations of the PS3, that's just a matter of priorities. Games could be designed to leave enough resources unused to get a Party Chat going. Not like the Xbox360 does it any other way.

I occasionally see advitisements for using Skype Premium, but that is all. I very much doubt Skype makes a lot of money by advertisements. My guess would be that their money is made from calling selphones via Skype, and the like.

As for the PS3 having Party Chat. I don't know anywhere near enough about the tech to argue your point, but it doesn't seem like a smart decision to take ressources away from running the game. Afterall, the PS3 isn't known to be good at multi tasking. Perhaps the architecture on the 360 makes this easier to do?

You're buying a package. Whether you like the contents is entirely up to you. Nobody's forcing you to pay for something you don't want. You can always opt-out. If you couldn't and nobody told you about it beforehand, that'd be foul play.

I will refer to my last point made to Scaff. You are forced to pay the subscription fee's if you want to use half the content in your games. I did indeed opt out of buying a 360, the main reason being Live. A lack of support for steering wheels being the other.

The reason for me voicing this opinion about onling gaming being free, is that I hope that one day, consumers will rise to the occasion, and understand that they have the power to stand up to business's. Once again, there is zero reason for consumers to be forced to pay to use half of their games. They've paid for their games, so it is only right that they can use all the features on it.

Are Microsoft even the ones paying for the servers for online games? I would think that the developers/puplishers of each game would pay for their own servers?

 

[Ddrizle]

Latest rumors from Polygon.

- The still-unnamed next Xbox will include the ability to capture video highlights of gameplay and then share them through networks like Facebook and Ustream.

- Microsoft is also trying to come up with a system for video sharing though all of the details are still being locked down. According to our sources, currently the next Xbox will capture your gameplay as if it were a DVR, allowing you to go back and select highlights. That function can be turned on or off, or a player can set up the console to automatically capture a recording when certain in-game events occur, like a headshot or collecting a specific achievement. Auto capturing those "magic moments" will be a feature only available on next-gen games.

- The next Xbox will indeed have some form of an always-on requirement. That will be both to support the suite of non-gaming entertainment applications that will be launched alongside the console, like streaming video services, but also as a possible anti-piracy tool. Currently, the console will support digital rights management and anti-piracy checks using an internet connection. The decision of whether a game will require an internet connection to work and if that is a one-time authentication or a constant connection, will be left up to individual publishers.

- The next-generation Live won't have a cap on the number of friends a person can have. The way players add friends will also change. Now instead of it being a two-way friendship only, people can choose to follow one another, sort of like Twitter.

 

[Wardez]

Sounds cool, but very, not free.

Hopefully these things are all optional, like XBL +, so to speak. They just need to make the core service free, no frills. Let people play the games, watch Netflix, have friends, party chat, etc.

 

[cuco33]

Content, that on every single other platform, is availible to you free of charge.

This isn't true. There's games on other platforms that require a subscription service. MMOs and some racers on PC for example. The norm is that yes, multiplayer game play is generally free elsewhere but it's not on 'every single other platform'.

I'm not trying to defend MS here. I've always thought that for a solid MP experience plus additional features that someone has to pay the network and infrastructure costs. MS passes that on to the consumer for a very low price. Sony makes it free for PS3. But be ready for PS4 to follow XBL with this. If it brings a better, more stable, faster network with more features for a cheap price, then I'm all for it. MS though has to respond by offering more to XBL thanks to PSN being MUCH better than the crap how it was at launch. PSN still isn't at the level of XBL but it surely is extremely close these days.

Regarding PS+, I like the whole idea but you don't get free stuff. You are paying to essentially rent, long term pending your subscription remains, the games Sony dishes out. I would love XBL to follow this btw, but those 'free' games aren't free. What you also get with PS+ is better game discounts and worse cloud storage means than MS's. Qore is not longer a service included.

 

[Jawehawk]

This isn't true. There's games on other platforms that require a subscription service. MMOs and some racers on PC for example. The norm is that yes, multiplayer game play is generally free elsewhere but it's not on 'every single other platform'.

But individual games aren't platforms. Platforms are the different consoles and the PC.

 

[Imari]

But individual games aren't platforms. Platforms are the different consoles and the PC.

And the point is it's not wholly free on PC either. For some games it is, for some games you have to pay extra if you want access to online.

It's a bit of a con comparing PC to consoles though. PC games are far more diverse with far less constraints than any console. MS and Sony basically have final say on what games can or cannot do on their consoles. PC games are beholden to no one. Hence why it's impossible to say that PC games are or are not free to play online.

 

[Jawehawk]

And the point is it's not wholly free on PC either. For some games it is, for some games you have to pay extra if you want access to online.

It's a bit of a con comparing PC to consoles though. PC games are far more diverse with far less constraints than any console. MS and Sony basically have final say on what games can or cannot do on their consoles. PC games are beholden to no one. Hence why it's impossible to say that PC games are or are not free to play online.

The vast majority of PC gamesa are free. There's nothing to stop you from losing out on online content in every single game on that platform. There in lies my arguement. Including the very few PC games that require a subscription service as an arguement for why Live is alright, is silly. On the 360. It effects every signle game. On the PC, it effects only a select few.

 

[Scaff]

Exactly. With PS Plus, you get what you pay for. With Live, you get some nice features, and access to the other half of the content in the games that you buy. Content, that on every single other platform, is availible to you free of charge. And a few of the things on PS Plus is your to keep forever.

And the most important part, is that PS Plus does not interfere with your online gaming experience in any way. it's entirely optional, and won't keep you from enjoying all the content of games you have purchased.

You get to keep the .20p avatars and backgrounds, you do get to keep anything that you got a discount on, funny that both of those things would also apply to Live. What you do not get to keep is any of the full titles provided with PS Plus, nor would I personally expect to given that its a rental service, as such you do not get any free games at all. Oh and given that I don't get to pick what these rental titles are I get what I am fed, not what I pick (some is great - some of it's rubbish).

And has been said, on-line gaming is not free on everything, more titles are going free to play, MMO's in particular, but its this free to play that's driving Micro Transactions (along with 'free' mobile games). Please keep in mind this is an area that both Sony and MS are involved in.

Did not know that. For the current generation, I have no problem with a company charging for such a service. Should be free on the next generations, simply because it has become mainstream. But it's no excuse for charging consumers who only want to use all the content in their games.

You don't know yet if Sony will charge for such an approach on the PS4, keep in mind that they have been very vague about what will be free and what will cost on the PS4.

Home is again optional, and it doesn't keep you from playing any games. Xbox Live is also optional, but not paying for it, means missing out on a ton of content in games. It seems as I can't make that point enough.
I don't blame MS for microtransactions. I was merely giving an example of what could happen when people continue to support these kinds of business strategies.

By withholding half of the content in games, Microsoft is essentially pressuring 360's players into subscriping to Live. Sure, they still have a choice. But it's a choice between not playing online games and the games that require internet for certain single player features, or to pay the subscription fee's. And that is BS.

You might have a point if MS hid any of this from people, but its quite open and up front about it, as such it is a choice. You made a choice in that regard, its why you have a PS3, I made a choice in that regard and its why I have both.

I occasionally see advitisements for using Skype Premium, but that is all. I very much doubt Skype makes a lot of money by advertisements. My guess would be that their money is made from calling selphones via Skype, and the like.

You would be surprised what advertising revenue like that can bring in, yes its only one income stream, but with 500+ million users that's a large advertising target (imagine how much a TV advert would cost you that hit even a tenth of that number).

As for the PS3 having Party Chat. I don't know anywhere near enough about the tech to argue your point, but it doesn't seem like a smart decision to take ressources away from running the game. Afterall, the PS3 isn't known to be good at multi tasking. Perhaps the architecture on the 360 makes this easier to do?

I will refer to my last point made to Scaff. You are forced to pay the subscription fee's if you want to use half the content in your games. I did indeed opt out of buying a 360, the main reason being Live. A lack of support for steering wheels being the other.

The reason for me voicing this opinion about onling gaming being free, is that I hope that one day, consumers will rise to the occasion, and understand that they have the power to stand up to business's. Once again, there is zero reason for consumers to be forced to pay to use half of their games. They've paid for their games, so it is only right that they can use all the features on it.

Are Microsoft even the ones paying for the servers for online games? I would think that the developers/puplishers of each game would pay for their own servers?

Again you have said it yourself, your were not forced my MS into anything, you have already made your choice as a consumer and went with the PS3, what your now attempting to do is force everyone to share your world view and do what you want.

Its not that simple as many of us see the better overall on-line service that Live offers and don't have an issue paying for it, and please stop with the half your games don't work nonsense, 100% of many games work perfectly well without Live and not everyone plays online, I know one guy who has never taken his PS3 on-line despite it being free.

The only part of Live I find an issue is that stuff live Lovefilm, LastFM, etc require gold to use, those should be part of Silver in my opinion, I am however quite OK with paying for access to on-line gaming. You can disagree with me on that point all day long (and I'm sure you will), but you can't say my opinion on the matter is wrong. Will I be a happy bunny if Live goes free on the next Xbox? Of course I will, but I would not be surprised if we end up seeing chargeable access to one degree or another on both systems.

 

[Jawehawk]

Again you have said it yourself, your were not forced my MS into anything, you have already made your choice as a consumer and went with the PS3, what your now attempting to do is force everyone to share your world view and do what you want.

Its not that simple as many of us see the better overall on-line service that Live offers and don't have an issue paying for it, and please stop with the half your games don't work nonsense, 100% of many games work perfectly well without Live and not everyone plays online, I know one guy who has never taken his PS3 on-line despite it being free.

The only part of Live I find an issue is that stuff live Lovefilm, LastFM, etc require gold to use, those should be part of Silver in my opinion, I am however quite OK with paying for access to on-line gaming. You can disagree with me on that point all day long (and I'm sure you will), but you can't say my opinion on the matter is wrong. Will I be a happy bunny if Live goes free on the next Xbox? Of course I will, but I would not be surprised if we end up seeing chargeable access to one degree or another on both systems.

But see, that's the thing that I don't understand. Why are you okay with paying to do some thing that is free elsewhere? Not to mention something that MS have no reason to charge for. I completely understand that you and a lot of other people, are fine paying for what is ultimately a better overall service. But how can you say that playing games online shouldn't be free? Again, I assume that the developers of the individual games pay for their own online servers, so it isn't money out of Microsoft's pockets. So why do they require you to pay for it?

And it's true that if you don't pay for Live, you miss out on roughtly 50% of the content in games. That is fact. Some people mgiht not be interested in that content, and that is completeyl fine. But none the less, it is content that they paid for when they bought the game.

 

[Scaff]

But see, that's the thing that I don't understand. Why are you okay with paying to do some thing that is free elsewhere? Not to mention something that MS have no reason to charge for. I completely understand that you and a lot of other people, are fine paying for what is ultimately a better overall service. But how can you say that playing games online shouldn't be free? Again, I assume that the developers of the individual games pay for their own online servers, so it isn't money out of Microsoft's pockets. So why do they require you to pay for it?

Umm you just answered the question yourself.

Have you ever done a back to back on-line test across titles on both services?

I have, I once ended up with a copy of COD:BO on both platforms and the difference on-line between the two was quite marked.

And it's true that if you don't pay for Live, you miss out on roughtly 50% of the content in games. That is fact. Some people mgiht not be interested in that content, and that is completeyl fine. But none the less, it is content that they paid for when they bought the game.

Could you tell me what the 50% consists of for Sykrim?

And once again you completely ignore the fact that the charge for Gold is something that is quite open and is a choice, no one is forced to buy a 360.

 

[Eks]

And it's true that if you don't pay for Live, you miss out on roughtly 50% of the content in games. That is fact. Some people mgiht not be interested in that content, and that is completeyl fine. But none the less, it is content that they paid for when they bought the game.

I have to agree with this. Xbox Live without Gold subscription is like a computer without internet that somehow has a friends list, and you miss out on more than just games. I mean c'mon, you can't use a single one of the 200 apps and everything on the video, music, and apps section (excluding Xbox Video/Music and advertisements relating to it..that's free, right?) might as well be hidden/removed because they're pretty useless without Gold.

 

[Jawehawk]

Umm you just answered the question yourself.

Have you ever done a back to back on-line test across titles on both services?

I have, I once ended up with a copy of COD:BO on both platforms and the difference on-line between the two was quite marked.

Could you tell me what the 50% consists of for Sykrim?

And once again you completely ignore the fact that the charge for Gold is something that is quite open and is a choice, no one is forced to buy a 360.

I haven't done screen to screen testing. But I do have a lot of experience playing online on the PS3. And aside from games with shoddy net coding like RE5, then I don't experience any lag. That should qualify as a proper online experience. I wouldn't know about CoD, as I stay away from atrocious game franchises .

And about the 50% thing. I know that you know what I mean when I say roughly 50% of the content in games. Of course I know that some games are single player only. But the majority of games have some kind of online component.

But if we're going to bring up individual games as examples, then how about NHL 12. NHL 12 has a mode where you can create a team, and use it both online and offline against AI. But! If you aren't connected to the internet, then you can't play that mode at all. Dispite the fact that you are never required to actually play that mode with other people. That is single player content, that the user is being denied if he/she isn't a member of Live. While the fault primarily lies with EA and it's shoddy game design, the problem wouldn't be there if playing games online was free.

 

[Akira GT]

Unless Microsoft have something amazing up their sleeves I won't be getting the Next Xbox. I purchased a 360 this generation mainly for Forza Motorsport and because more people I knew bought a Xbox. I think they've been trying to shove Kinect into people's faces since 2011 which is a pain since I have no interest in it.

I think people are getting tired of paying for simple online play with the 360 while competitors (PS3, Wii U and possibly PS4) offer online play for free. If Microsoft want to stay in the game I think they'll have to incorporate online play and use of apps into XBL Silver while keeping all the extras for Gold. They also need some diversity in their exclusive games there is only so much FPS and Kinect games that people can take.

 

[LaBounti]

I have to agree with this. Xbox Live without Gold subscription is like a computer without internet that somehow has a friends list, and you miss out on more than just games. I mean c'mon, you can't use a single one of the 200 apps and everything on the video, music, and apps section (excluding Xbox Video/Music and advertisements relating to it..that's free, right?) might as well be hidden/removed because they're pretty useless without Gold.

The very reason I quit live. I never got my monies worth. I'm not big on online multiplayer and I refuse to pay full price for a game with unusable features like Forza 4. Waited for a sale for $30.

Now its even worse with the $10 price hike and still need it to even use Netflix.

 

[dzidza]

Umm you just answered the question yourself.

Have you ever done a back to back on-line test across titles on both services?

I have, I once ended up with a copy of COD:BO on both platforms and the difference on-line between the two was quite marked.



Could you tell me what the 50% consists of for Sykrim?

And once again you completely ignore the fact that the charge for Gold is something that is quite open and is a choice, no one is forced to buy a 360.

How is it not forced if i can't use what i payed for. If online game is separate game from offline then ok, but if it is a part of a purchesed game then its forced. Quality of service should not be charged separately. If they want to charge for quality then it should.be a price calculated in the games price. They quality should mean then more customers leaning towards xbox. Their quality also depends on your IP quality.
Arent you obligated to buy also a netflix subscription, so you are paying double, while if your using pc then you are paying only for netflix subscription. Unfortunately I am on my phone so its difficult to elaborate why this is wrong, and why this should not be the future practice and i hope microsoft should change their strategy. One of the most idiotic move was to alow internet browsing only to gold customers, while its free on the pc,mobile phone, tablets, and then you get spamed with ads. I hope you see how this is wrong. This practice is not customer oriented, especially when only some customers can use what they are paying for. Sorry for my bad english.

 

[Scaff]

How is it not forced if i can't use what i payed for. If online game is separate game from offline then ok, but if it is a part of a purchesed game then its forced. Quality of service should not be charged separately. If they want to charge for quality then it should.be a price calculated in the games price. They quality should mean then more customers leaning towards xbox. Their quality also depends on your IP quality.

You were forced to buy an Xbox?

I would avoid that shop in future then!

Sorry but that was the point I was making, the need to pay for Live has been quite clear since the days of the original Xbox, now if it had started off as a free service and then gone to a paid one that would be different. It didn't however and as such this was something that was known at the time of purchase, and as such a choice was available.

Arent you obligated to buy also a netflix subscription, so you are paying double, while if your using pc then you are paying only for netflix subscription. Unfortunately I am on my phone so its difficult to elaborate why this is wrong, and why this should not be the future practice and i hope microsoft should change their strategy. One of the most idiotic move was to alow internet browsing only to gold customers, while its free on the pc,mobile phone, tablets, and then you get spamed with ads. I hope you see how this is wrong. This practice is not customer oriented, especially when only some customers can use what they are paying for. Sorry for my bad english.

I've also said that I agree that third party stuff such as Netflix and LastFM should not be behind the paywall, even the fact that you get Lovefilm in HD on the 360 (and not on the PS3) doesn't justify it, that said the PS3 is better for Netflix.

Source - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-netflix-vs-lovefilm-face-off

 

[thelvynau]

Im still waiting for more info from MS regarding charging for xbl.

I still dont see them removing a large revenue raiser even if psn was as good.

Maybe allowing more for the silver members or allowing basic multiplayer online and gold members can do more for example Forza they could allow silver members to play online but only gold members can use the marketplace.

 

[dzidza]

You were forced to buy an Xbox?

I would avoid that shop in future then!

Sorry but that was the point I was making, the need to pay for Live has been quite clear since the days of the original Xbox, now if it had started off as a free service and then gone to a paid one that would be different. It didn't however and as such this was something that was known at the time of purchase, and as such a choice was available.






I've also said that I agree that third party stuff such as Netflix and LastFM should not be behind the paywall, even the fact that you get Lovefilm in HD on the 360 (and not on the PS3) doesn't justify it, that said the PS3 is better for Netflix.

Source - http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-netflix-vs-lovefilm-face-off

I was not forced to buy xbox, but then again, on the box i didnt find anywhere where it said that i need na xbox live gold to play online.I know this is lame excuse, but lots of people dont research what the are buying, and its easy to trick them without giving them essencial information about product. This is happening in lots of industries and microsoft is not the only one to blame. But at the end its up to us to either support their business model, or not. I have supported them, due to my love for motorsport games, but if they continue like this for nextbox, i am out, this also goes if ps4 starts charging for online.

 

[Eks]

Well, all I have to say is that paying for Xbox Live is stupid and that Xbox Live Silver/Free is good for nothing more than looking at pretty Dashboard advertisements. I think Xbox Live should be free next generation, but I don't think it will. As long as they keep it $60/year then I don't see many people caring, unfortunately.

 

[Luminis]

But see, that's the thing that I don't understand. Why are you okay with paying to do some thing that is free elsewhere?

Because the same thing isn't free elsewhere. Do tell me how to get to play Forza 4 with party chat for free. I'm all ears.

Not to mention something that MS have no reason to charge for.

They want to make money. They could be giving a lot of other stuff away for free and don't because they want to make money. Hey, Sony shouldn't be charging money for PS Home items either. That should be free, why don't we get that for free, as we should? Damn, because they want to make money. See how that works?

Again, I assume that the developers of the individual games pay for their own online servers, so it isn't money out of Microsoft's pockets. So why do they require you to pay for it?

You assume wrong. Developers pay to have their patches and stuff rolled out onto the servers Microsoft provides, so Microsoft does indeed provide the infrastructure the player uses.

And it's true that if you don't pay for Live, you miss out on roughtly 50% of the content in games.

You know, XBL Gold mostly affects multiplayer, right? Last time I checked, it's highly dependant on the game in question whether you miss out on a lot or not. I do know that I didn't miss out on a lot of content (certainly not 50%) when I played Dark Souls.

That is fact. Some people mgiht not be interested in that content, and that is completeyl fine. But none the less, it is content that they paid for when they bought the game.

So... Do MS (and Sony, for that matter) have to pay my internet connection? Just asking, because without that, I wouldn't be able to access your "factual" 50% of content, either way.

I haven't done screen to screen testing. But I do have a lot of experience playing online on the PS3. And aside from games with shoddy net coding like RE5, then I don't experience any lag. That should qualify as a proper online experience. I wouldn't know about CoD, as I stay away from atrocious game franchises .

So, you're basically in no position at all to judge how good XBL is in comparison to PSN. Why, oh why doesn't that surprise me?

And about the 50% thing. I know that you know what I mean when I say roughly 50% of the content in games. Of course I know that some games are single player only. But the majority of games have some kind of online component.

50% is just a number you pulled out of your butt and that's it, isn't it?

But if we're going to bring up individual games as examples, then how about NHL 12. NHL 12 has a mode where you can create a team, and use it both online and offline against AI. But! If you aren't connected to the internet, then you can't play that mode at all. Dispite the fact that you are never required to actually play that mode with other people. That is single player content, that the user is being denied if he/she isn't a member of Live. While the fault primarily lies with EA and it's shoddy game design, the problem wouldn't be there if playing games online was free.

And that's half the content, right

How is it not forced if i can't use what i payed for.

Didn't know Bill Gates points a gun to people's heads and forces them to buy an Xbox, games that require XBL or XBL itself.

If online game is separate game from offline then ok, but if it is a part of a purchesed game then its forced.

You can always, you know, not buy it because you prefer not to? "Force someone to do something" means that that person has no choice but to comply. Not quite true, is it?

Quality of service should not be charged separately. If they want to charge for quality then it should.be a price calculated in the games price.

You would want to pay more per game than to pay for XBL? Strange logic, gotta give you that.

They quality should mean then more customers leaning towards xbox. Their quality also depends on your IP quality.
Arent you obligated to buy also a netflix subscription, so you are paying double, while if your using pc then you are paying only for netflix subscription. Unfortunately I am on my phone so its difficult to elaborate why this is wrong, and why this should not be the future practice and i hope microsoft should change their strategy. One of the most idiotic move was to alow internet browsing only to gold customers, while its free on the pc,mobile phone, tablets, and then you get spamed with ads. I hope you see how this is wrong. This practice is not customer oriented, especially when only some customers can use what they are paying for. Sorry for my bad english.

Everyone gets to use what they are paying for. The question is what you want to pay for and what you don't want to pay for, that's all. IF you don't want to pay for XBL, don't. It's not that hard. If that's a deal breaker to you because you'd rather have the inferior service for three bucks a month less, you can always opt out of buying an Xbox. That's about as wrong as the options list at my local car dealer.

I was not forced to buy xbox, but then again, on the box i didnt find anywhere where it said that i need na xbox live gold to play online.I know this is lame excuse

It's not an excuse, it's a straight lie. Every Xbox360 game has the very same disclaimer on the back, which includes the information that you need a paid XBL subscription to access the multiplayer. It's highlited in orange on most games' boxes.

 

[Jawehawk]

Because the same thing isn't free elsewhere. Do tell me how to get to play Forza 4 with party chat for free. I'm all ears.

So you read the first two sentences of the comment, and then started writing a reply? If you read on, you'd see that I later say that I understand people paying for the overall service, including the Party Chat. But that I do not understand people wanting to pay to play their games online. They're already doing that when they're paying for their internet. If you're going to debate, then don't take things out of context.

I've stated numerous times now that the problem is the online play not being free. Not the Party Chat. You'd think it would start to sink in.

They want to make money. They could be giving a lot of other stuff away for free and don't because they want to make money. Hey, Sony shouldn't be charging money for PS Home items either. That should be free, why don't we get that for free, as we should? Damn, because they want to make money. See how that works?

You know, XBL Gold mostly affects multiplayer, right? Last time I checked, it's highly dependant on the game in question whether you miss out on a lot or not. I do know that I didn't miss out on a lot of content (certainly not 50%) when I played Dark Souls.

So... Do MS (and Sony, for that matter) have to pay my internet connection? Just asking, because without that, I wouldn't be able to access your "factual" 50% of content, either way.

Yeah. MS wants to make money. Same as every other companies. Difference is that some companies take advantages of their consumers, and some consumers let them.

Yes. The 50% thing is a very rough estimate. I thought that was abundantly clear (as I never stated it as fact, never shared a source and even chose such a fantastic round and even number that everyone should be able to understand its meaning)... Would appear I was wrong. Are you going to argue that the games that have online content is in the minority? Not denying that it is possible. But I certainly doubt it.

Of course you need to pay for your internet. It's a service provided to you, and if no one paid, it wouldn't be possible. MS are the only ones who charges their consumers for them to play their games online. All other platforms show that it is perfectly possible to let their consumers enjoy their games online, without charging money for it.

That MS wants to charge for the extra features they provide, is again, completely fine. But charging for something that all their competitors does for free? Not nice.

So, you're basically in no position at all to judge how good XBL is in comparison to PSN. Why, oh why doesn't that surprise me?

Right. That certainly is a handy arguement. Except I'm argueing whether playing your games online, should be free or not. Something that has no relevance to any of the online features on the 360, except that of actually playing games online. Something that I have tried on the 360. And guess what. It was the exact same experience as on the PS3.

And that's half the content, right?

It's actually a sizeable portion of the game's content. It's something that supports my arguement, and you have nothing to refute it. It's Single Player content, and it is being withheld from you. Even if the primary fault lies with EA.


I seem to have to repeat my self a lot with you guys, so let me say it again with a short summary. The issue is not Party Chat, nor is it the many other features offered with Live. The issue is with denying users the online content in their games.

Edit: Actually. Let me put this into perspective. Why do you guys think you can't play online on the 360 without paying for Live? The compitition shows it's perfectly possible to provide perfectly good and stable servers for free. So why not Microsoft? I'll tell you why. Because if they did offer it for free, and kept all the neat features like Party Chat, etc. for Live. Then they'd lose out on money. So they pressure consumers into paying for Live in order to play what they want to play. Microsoft can't force anyone to pay for Live, but they can pressure them into doing so. And that is exactly what they're doing. They then make the amount of money needed for Live so small, that people will defend them. Perfect plan I suppose.

 

[Scaff]

That MS wants to charge for the extra features they provide, is again, completely fine. But charging for something that all their competitors does for free? Not nice.

Once again not all of its competitors do this for free.

https://www.soe.com/allaccess/?locale=en_US

So a question back at you, who do Sony charge for the need to play these titles on-line?

Could it be to make money?

How does All Access work?
All Access is a game pass (subscription) that grants access to the above SOE games through your Station Account. This means that you have one login that you can use across all included games. You pay a recurring fee for this game pass and, in some cases, also need to buy the game software.

So a service that requires you to buy a game and then pay to play it online, but don't worry they only charge $179 a year for a suite of games online access, games in which the content is 100% online.

Yes MS charge for online gaming and I fully understand that you don't like it, but please stop with this nonsense that they are the only people doing it. Must be all that respect Sony have for consumers.

As for the service in terms of stability being the exact same between PSN and Live, sorry but you simply haven't spent enough time with both if that's honestly what you believe.

 

[Jawehawk]

Once again not all of its competitors do this for free.

https://www.soe.com/allaccess/?locale=en_US

So a question back at you, who do Sony charge for the need to play these titles on-line?

Could it be to make money?



So a service that requires you to buy a game and then pay to play it online, but don't worry they only charge $179 a year for a suite of games online access, games in which the content is 100% online.

Yes MS charge for online gaming and I fully understand that you don't like it, but please stop with this nonsense that they are the only people doing it. Must be all that respect Sony have for consumers.

As for the service in terms of stability being the exact same between PSN and Live, sorry but you simply haven't spent enough time with both if that's honestly what you believe.

And once again. Individual games, aren't platforms. A game console, is a platform. A PC, is a platform. I fully condemn this kind of BS as well, espicially with such ludacris prices. But it's not on the same scale as Live. And it wouldn't really make sense for me to come to this thread and start condemning Free to Play games, now would it?

I'm fully aware that Sony has and is doing its fair share of BS. But they have yet to feature a subscription service on an entire platform, that, if I do not pay, disables all the online content in games that I buy for the platform. (Does that sentence make sense?)

As for stability. I've played online on the PS3, a lot. Aside from the odd maintenance, and the rather long downtime on the network after the hack, I've never encountered any problems. You can find problems with the net coding of individual games though, Like RE5 and GT5.

With that siad. Maybe I was wrong in saying that Sony has more respect for their consumers than Microsoft. But that shouldn't excuse either for the greedy parts of their business practices.

 

[Terronium-12]

Disables all of the online content if you don't pay? I... don't think so.

You are aware of Live Free (Silver), right? And you are aware that one of the chief reasons Live is a paid for service is because the original Xbox essentially pioneered console-based online interactions, aren't you?