The Xbox One Thread - One X & One SXBOne

[dzidza]

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.


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 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.


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.

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?


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


And that's half the content, right

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.


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?


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


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.

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.

If you read my post correctly you would see that I didn't say xbox games, but a box in which xbox came, so please read if carefully next time before calling someone a liar (on my box it doesn't at least).

And for your information, I can't use any of the apps even though that i payed for Gold membership (netflix, music etc) why, cause in don't live in USA.

No one if forced to buy anything, but info on the product should be complete especially if it requires paying for additional fees to be able to play games fully (and I am not talking about info on the games, because apparently Xbox360 can do more things then just play games, something my xbox can't even with GOLD subscription).

 

[Luminis]

If you read my post correctly you would see that I didn't say xbox games, but a box in which xbox came, so please read if carefully next time before calling someone a liar.

Where did you buy your Xbox? A used one one at Gamestop? When I bought my Elite back in the day (2006, I believe), it had the full disclaimer printed on the back. There was more text on the back of that damn box than in a loan contract

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.

Talk about taking things out of context. What has been said (numerous times, by the way, by more than one member) is that we don't like to pay to play. We like to play for the package on offer, which includes more than just playing online. That package is, in total worth paying three bucks a month over PSN and, as you might have noticed, a few others. You can try to seperate the "play" part from that all you want, but the matter of the fact is that you do get more for your money than that.

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.

Given that you fail to understand why people are even okay with paying for XBL, you shouldn't be calling people out on stuff like that. Also, again, you can't separate the "play" part because it frankly is not the only thing XBL provides, thus, judging the whole service based on that is BS.

Yeah. MS wants to make money. Same as every other companies. Difference is that some companies make their costumers bend over for them. And some costumers let them...

You'd feel bend over because of three bucks a month? My god, you must squeal and scream every time you're paying taxes. I'd feel bend over if I didn't get my money's worth. Which I don't. I had less issues with unstable connections, lag, maintenance and outages in seven years with XBL than I had in half a year with PSN.

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.

I'm arguing that you're trying pretty darn hard to make XBL look as bad as you can, by pulling numbers out of thin air, for example.

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.

Interesting, isn't it? To think that XBL does indeed offer services others don't and you're explaining perfectly why they're charging 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.

Again, that's up to you. Hey, you can hate MS for it all you want, I prefer paying a premium to get an all-around better service. I'd pay half the price just for the better quality of XBL alone, so what?

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.

It is a pretty darn handy argument indeed. And as I and others have pointed out why multiple times, I would believe you'd start to see the point by now.
It's actually a sizeable portion of the game's content. It's something that supports my argument, 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.
Hit the nail on the head. They've even got their Online Pass going, after all. That said, I've a hard time thinking of a non-EA game that does that. I do know a few games that actually allow some online features to be accessed with XBL Silver (Forza's leaderboards and RIvals Mode, for one).

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.

Which I will again reply the same thing to: You can rage over that all you like, that's your choice. Don't go around pretending that everyone who is willing to pay for it is "bending over". That attitude is what severely pisses me off.

 

[Scaff]

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 understand fully that if you narrow the definition enough then it meets your argument, however the point you have raised numerous times is...

"Why are you okay with paying to do some thing that is free elsewhere?"

...and the point that has been made is that's not true in the wider world of gaming. SOE's environment may as well be a virtual platform on a PC, as you could say for Origin or Steam. Neither of which charge for on-line access to their virtual PC platform, so why do Sony?

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?)

They have on thier virtual PC platform and it not only stops you playing those titles any other way but locks 100% of the content.

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.

Once again have you had extensive experience of both? Do you play on-line on both on a daily basis?

I (and others on here) have and the difference between the two (particularly on titles that exist on both platforms) can be marked. You may not like the titles (and that doesn't make a blind bit of difference) but COD played on both on-line is not even close to being the same. Matchmaking on Live is quicker, matches are a lot less prone to disconnects and interruptions and host migration (which is prone to not working on PSN) never causes a problem.

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.

No it shouldn't and the 'respect' part was the main point I was attempting to make, as for greed. Well that's what companies on the whole do, they make money in any way they can. You are also right that consumers are the ones with the power, but simply because you don't see the value in something doesn't make it wrong and nor does it mean you were forced or pressured. Just as you don't see value in it and opted not to go for a 360 doesn't mean you are 'right', it means you made a choice, just as those of use who do see value in it and opted to buy a 360 are not 'right', it means we made a choice.

If you read my post correctly you would see that I didn't say xbox games, but a box in which xbox came, so please read if carefully next time before calling someone a liar (on my box it doesn't at least).

And for your information, I can't use any of the apps even though that i payed for Gold membership (netflix, music etc) why, cause in don't live in USA.

No one if forced to buy anything, but info on the product should be complete especially if it requires paying for additional fees to be able to play games fully (and I am not talking about info on the games, because apparently Xbox360 can do more things then just play games, something my xbox can't even with GOLD subscription).

I've just checked the box my 360 came in and it quite clearly states on the back of the box that Live Gold membership is required to play on-line and that its a chargeable extra, it also carries the exact same information on the back of every game.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

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.

Using that logic then, does that make GTPlanet only accessible if you pay money for Premium subscription?

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?

Pioneered paid for console based online interactions maybe.

Microsoft did try and do this with PC but they quickly decided to make it free, so I guess Microsoft will only do this while there are enough customers willing to pay for a subscription. Good to see they are trying to make it less of a cost potentially now making family pack same price as a single membership. I personally see them only being able to continue with this subscription online thing if Sony start charging for online access. If Sony don't and Microsoft struggle with the next Xbox then I see it becoming free within 2 years, my personal opinion.



Now more information on a feature that might be immersive regarding next Xbox: Link

 

[Scaff]

Using that logic then, does that make GTPlanet only accessible if you pay money for Premium subscription?

Run a lot of your on-line games via GT Planet do you?

Seriously that is a rather poor analogy.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Run a lot of your on-line games via GT Planet do you?

Seriously that is a rather poor analogy.

It is getting the same point across whether I use for example an online game such as Runescape or other free to play games that also have some kind of additional membership benefits at a charge. Like Playstation Plus gives you extra benefits but do I need it to play online and the answer is no.

Your example is quite poor, trying to paint a certain negative picture by making things up.

 

[Scaff]

It is getting the same point across whether I use for example an online game such as Runescape or other free to play games that also have some kind of additional membership benefits at a charge. Like Playstation Plus gives you extra benefits but do I need it to play online and the answer is no.

Do you need Live Gold to play Xbox games on-line? Yes
Do you need an SOE pass to play SOE games on-line? Yes
Do you need GTP in anyway to play games on line? No

Your example is quite poor, trying to paint a certain negative picture by making things up.

Exactly what have I made up?

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Do you need Live Gold to play Xbox games on-line? Yes
Do you need an SOE pass to play SOE games on-line? Yes
Do you need GTP in anyway to play games on line? No




Exactly what have I made up?

No one forces you to become a premium member in these free-to-play games, same goes for GTPlanet Premium or Playstation Plus say. There is no harm playing it online as a free-to-play game. The SOE pass thing is a huge bulk discount on becoming a premium member at them free-to-play games as I understand. Using for example this forum, if Jordan created multiple gaming websites and offered premium accounts on each, then offered a bulk premium account access for his websites at a much cheaper rate then that will be a similar model to what is being used by the SOE All Access game pass.

 

[Scaff]

No one forces you to become a premium member in these free-to-play games, same goes for GTPlanet Premium or Playstation Plus say. There is no harm playing it online as a free-to-play game. The SOE pass thing is a huge bulk discount on being a premium member at them free to play websites as I understand. Using for example this forum, if Jordan created multiple gaming websites and offered premium accounts on each, then offered a bulk premium account access for his websites at a much cheaper rate then that will be a similar model to what is being used by the SOE All Access game pass.

You seriously didn't bother actually looking at the SOE link did you.

Yes SOE runs some Free to Play games, but it also does and has run chargeable games (as have a huge number of other providers), these are not all free to play at all nor are they premium features, but incur a monthly charge to play on-line (and in a number of cases you have to buy the game itself upfront). Yes they are making more of these free-to play, but they certainly are not all in that category (yet)This is exactly why SOE state the following:

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.

Which I've already posted (along with a link to the SOE site which details all of this).

A wider comparison shows that a number of MMORPGs still charge monthly - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_massively_multiplayer_online_role-playing_games

As such I have not made a thing up at all, and your accusation was both incorrect and uncalled for.

You will also notice that I have repeatedly said that if Live went free I would have no issue with that at all, but right now I have no problem with paying for the service that Live provides against PSN. I've also stated that I believe 3rd party apps (Netflix, etc) should not be behind the paywall.

I've also stated that I actually find it just as likely that Sony will move to some form of subscription service for PSN next gen as Live going cost free.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

You seriously didn't bother actually looking at the SOE link did you.

Yes SOE runs some Free to Play games, but it also does and has run chargeable games (as have a huge number of other providers), these are not all free to play at all nor are they premium features, but incur a monthly charge to play on-line (and in a number of cases you have to buy the game itself upfront). Yes they are making more of these free-to play, but they certainly are not all in that category (yet)This is exactly why SOE state the following:



Which I've already posted (along with a link to the SOE site which details all of this).

As such I have not made a thing up at all, and your accusation was both incorrect and uncalled for.

Maybe you didn't bother.

What is wrong with having additional DLC or games you can buy, you can't expect all games to be provided for free. Still doesn't force you to pay to play online and become a premium member as there is still a free-to-play option.

 

[Scaff]

Maybe you didn't bother.

What is wrong with having additional DLC or games you can buy, you can't expect all games to be provided for free. Still doesn't force you to pay to play online and become a premium member as there is still a free-to-play option.

Try playing Planetside (or any of the other chargeable MMORPGs listed on the second link) for free. SOE were also charging for the majority of those only a few years ago (even DC Universe was chargeable for the first few months and went free to play to stop it loosing membership).

The point stands, these companies charge for something that is free on the PS3 and as such Live is NOT the only example of it. Narrow the definition to gaming platform if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that companies charge to play games on-line, and its not just MS.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Try playing Planetside (or any of the other chargeable MMORPGs listed on the second link) for free. SOE were also charging for the majority of those only a few years ago (even DC Universe was chargeable for the first few months and went free to play to stop it loosing membership).

The point stands, these companies charge for something that is free on the PS3 and as such Live is NOT the only example of it. Narrow the definition to gaming platform if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that companies charge to play games on-line, and its not just MS.

Planetside is probably only one you have to pay for I saw regarding SOE but that also makes a different point to what Xbox Live is doing. iRacing for example is a subscription based racing game. I don't have any real problems with that.

What Xbox Live Gold is doing is different, you are paying to be able to say use your subscriptions so for example, if you had Planetside on Xbox 360, you would need an additional subscription to play it online and use the same servers that others will get access to for free on PC for example. If you have subscription on LOVEFiLM or Sky Go, other platforms that have it are free but Microsoft charge to be able to use it.

 

[Jawehawk]

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?

It disables online content in games. Silver won't enable those features (generally speaking).

The Playstation 2 had online capability in both Japan and the US before Live was introduces to the XBOX. While you could certainly argue that Live for XBOX was far better and greater in size, they still weren't the first. That said, I suppose you could say they were pioneeres in the sense that the original Live, looked somewhat like what we have today.

Talk about taking things out of context. What has been said (numerous times, by the way, by more than one member) is that we don't like to pay to play. We like to pay for the package on offer, which includes more than just playing online. That package is, in total worth paying three bucks a month over PSN and, as you might have noticed, a few others. You can try to seperate the "play" part from that all you want, but the matter of the fact is that you do get more for your money than that.

And what harm would come out of seperating that of playing games online, and all the other features? Those who like the features, can then pay for them. Those who don't, would still be free to enjoy their games to the full extend. That's a win/win for the consumers. Microsoft would hardly feel the financial outcome. I guess my policy is that big companies who can afford it, should let things like playing games online be free. Sounds quite naive, I know.

You'd feel bend over because of three bucks a month? My god, you must squeal and scream every time you're paying taxes. I'd feel bend over if I didn't get my money's worth. Which I don't. I had less issues with unstable connections, lag, maintenance and outages in seven years with XBL than I had in half a year with PSN.

I would feel like I was being taken advantage off, because I only want to use all the features my games have to offer. I'm not interested in all the extra features. I live in a one-room apartment, so using my PC to chat with people while playing on my console, is not a problem. The amount of money that I would save on XBL, small or not, would surely be of use in other ways.

And yes, I do indeed feel like the state is taking advantage of their position. If you were to look at how many and how high the different taxes are in Denmark, you'd might feel the same . But that's a different topic.

I'm arguing that you're trying pretty darn hard to make XBL look as bad as you can, by pulling numbers out of thin air, for example.

I'm not saying that XBL is bad. It's a good service. I'm just saying that playing games online should be free. What other number would you have me use as a rough estimate on how many games have content that you can't use if you lack XBL?

Which I will again reply the same thing to: You can rage over that all you like, that's your choice. Don't go around pretending that everyone who is willing to pay for it is "bending over". That attitude is what severely pisses me off.

I don't consider posting arguements in a calm and relaxed way, as rageing. But ok. I used "bending over" as an analogy because that's the one I most commonly hear when talking about being taken advantage off. I've changed it into a less offensive analogy, and I do apologize if it came out wrong.

As I've already said, I do consider it as Microsoft taking advantage of their position and of their consumers. That's my opinion, and it's not likely to change. If you're offended by that in any way, then I'm sorry. I don't mean to insinuate that you are anyone else in here, are accustomed to being taken advantage off.

Once again have you had extensive experience of both? Do you play on-line on both on a daily basis?

I (and others on here) have and the difference between the two (particularly on titles that exist on both platforms) can be marked. You may not like the titles (and that doesn't make a blind bit of difference) but COD played on both on-line is not even close to being the same. Matchmaking on Live is quicker, matches are a lot less prone to disconnects and interruptions and host migration (which is prone to not working on PSN) never causes a problem.

I'll lightly go over the first couple of paragraphs in your comment. I agree that SOE is a bigger problem than XBL, but it still isn't on the same scale.

Now for the quoted paragraph. I'm sure you can find games with stability errors on both platforms. I can also find games that run on PSN, that do not have any problems. That alone should show that it's capable of providing a good and stable online experience. Again, net coding and the design of the online portion of a game can cause problems. I'm sure you're aware that most multi platform games are designed for the 360, then ported over to the PS3 and PC. As such, it makes perfect sense that the 360 version plays best.

Disclaimer: I've been trying to find any actual source for number of games being ported from one platform to another, but I can't find any. As such, it is possible that I'm wrong about games being ported from the 360, to other platforms.

Holy poo, it took me forever to write all this .

 

[Ddrizle]

May or may not be related.

 

[VYPA-SQUAD_Ace]

Hey, um.. I thought DC Universe was always free to play.

 

[Scaff]

Planetside is probably only one you have to pay for I saw regarding SOE but that also makes a different point to what Xbox Live is doing. iRacing for example is a subscription based racing game. I don't have any real problems with that.

So your in favour of needing a subscription to play games on-line and against needing a subscription to play a game on line.

Let me get this right a $40 subscription to play every on-line game for the 360 is bad, but a $120 subscription to play one Sony game on-line is OK?

What Xbox Live Gold is doing is different, you are paying to be able to say use your subscriptions so for example, if you had Planetside on Xbox 360, you would need an additional subscription to play it online and use the same servers that others will get access to for free on PC for example.

So are able to provide an example of MS charging for a Live gold account and then an additional fee for a game, or is this simply idle speculation on your part (in which case you shouldn't be stating as if it were fact)

If you have subscription on LOVEFiLM or Sky Go, other platforms that have it are free but Microsoft charge to be able to use it.

And are they games?

Nope and I have already stated that I think they should be outside the paywall.

Hey, um.. I thought DC Universe was always free to play.

From the digging I've done it would appear it was sub based for the first few months and then went free-to-pay. I beta tested the PS3 version and the early discussions were around it being sub based on the PS3 as well.

 

[VYPA-SQUAD_Ace]

From the digging I've done it would appear it was sub based for the first few months and then went free-to-pay.

Ah, I guess because I still have a beta copy, I didn't realize it was subscription based. I know it have micro-transactions.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

So your in favour of needing a subscription to play games on-line and against needing a subscription to play a game on line.

Let me get this right a $40 subscription to play every on-line game for the 360 is bad, but a $120 subscription to play one Sony game on-line is OK?

I don't like subscription based games but don't have any real problems with it. I prefer games you can buy and keep.

It is quite different, paying $40 I don't get to play a game on 360, if I don't have one or just free-to-play games. Paying $120 I get to play a game that I subscribed for and is only way attainable and money goes directly to publisher or whoever relevant the money goes to do as they please. Some games choose that route, some can just live off ads, some rely on extra benefit memberships and microtransactions and some can just be fine as a one-off purchase.

So are able to provide an example of MS charging for a Live gold account and then an additional fee for a game, or is this simply idle speculation on your part (in which case you shouldn't be stating as if it were fact)

I am just speculating if such game did make it on platform, It will probably follow suit as free-to-play games on Xbox 360, you need to have Xbox Live Gold to play them.

And are they games?

Nope and I have already stated that I think they should be outside the paywall.

I am just giving further examples proving the point that is quite different in principle. I wouldn't mind if Microsoft charged for said applications either but it is quite obvious what they are trying to do with the way it is currently set up and they look to be enjoying good success from it financially. It will be interesting to see the impact the new generation of consoles have on Microsoft's strategy. Soon we will know better, hope Sony keep it free.

 

[Scaff]

I don't like subscription based games but don't have any real problems with it. I prefer games you can buy and keep.

It is quite different, paying $40 I don't get to play a game on 360, if I don't have one or just free-to-play games. Paying $120 I get to play a game that I subscribed for and is only way attainable and money goes directly to publisher or whoever relevant the money goes to do as they please. Some games choose that route, some can just live off ads, some rely on extra benefit memberships and microtransactions and some can just be fine as a one-off purchase.

Actually you get 17 free games with Live Gold
http://vonbeau.com/offer/free-xbox-360-games-for-xbox-live-marketplace-members.htm

I am just speculating if such game did make it on platform, It will probably follow suit as free-to-play games on Xbox 360, you need to have Xbox Live Gold to play them.

Still doesn't make it a fact, and as we can see from above you speculation is not always right is it.

I am just giving further examples proving the point that is quite different in principle. I wouldn't mind if Microsoft charged for said applications either but it is quite obvious what they are trying to do with the way it is currently set up and they look to be enjoying good success from it financially. It will be interesting to see the impact the new generation of consoles have on Microsoft's strategy. Soon we will know better, hope Sony keep it free.

It will be interesting to see the impact it has on both Sony and MS, not sure why you keep assuming that we only need to consider one of these companies changing?

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Actually you get 17 free games with Live Gold
http://vonbeau.com/offer/free-xbox-360-games-for-xbox-live-marketplace-members.htm

You don't need Gold to buy them games for free though and maybe some don't even need Gold to play. Like I mentioned it will allow free-to-play online games to work if you have Gold but you don't get games that cost money with it unless you supply it.

Still doesn't make it a fact, and as we can see from above you speculation is not always right is it.

Didn't say it as fact though, just speculating on what it could be like with example of also say what is being done with apps. Maybe your misinterpreted what I said above and also I could have worded it better.

It will be interesting to see the impact it has on both Sony and MS, not sure why you keep assuming that we only need to consider one of these companies changing?

I am not assuming that and it seems quite clear from what I wrote regarding that.

 

[Scaff]

You don't need Gold to buy them games for free though and maybe some don't even need Gold to play. Like I mentioned it will allow free-to-play online games to work if you have Gold but you don't get games that cost money with it unless you supply it.

You do like to move those goalposts don't you.

You don't need to pay anything to download Planetside, but you sure as hell do need to pay three times the amount Live charges to actually then play it (for a single game).

I utterly fail to get the double standard you are operating here, its OK to pay $120 a year to play a single game on-line, but not OK to pay $40 a year to play hundreds of games online (and a good few of those free ones can be played online - including the excellent Happy Wars). Even if you just look at one title (lets say Happy Wars), I can get it for free (just like Planetside), I can play it off-line (unlike Planetside) and I can play it on-line for $40 a year (just like Planetside but that costs me $120 a year). Yet somehow one is OK and the other is not and oddly its the most expensive one that you can't play off-line that you find OK.

Didn't say it as fact though, just speculating on what it could be like with example of also say what is being done with apps. Maybe your misinterpreted what I said above and also I could have worded it better.

I most certainly think you could have worded it better.

I am not assuming that and it seems quite clear from what I wrote regarding that.

Sorry but no its not clear what you mean.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

You do like to move those goalposts don't you.

You don't need to pay anything to download Planetside, but you sure as hell do need to pay three times the amount Live charges to actually then play it (for a single game).

I utterly fail to get the double standard you are operating here, its OK to pay $120 a year to play a single game on-line, but not OK to pay $40 a year to play hundreds of games online (and a good few of those free ones can be played online - including the excellent Happy Wars). Even if you just look at one title (lets say Happy Wars), I can get it for free (just like Planetside), I can play it off-line (unlike Planetside) and I can play it on-line for $40 a year (just like Planetside but that costs me $120 a year). Yet somehow one is OK and the other is not and oddly its the most expensive one that you can't play off-line that you find OK.

How is it moving goal posts if it is true. You can play some of them games, maybe even a lot of them for free without Gold. Planetside is not a free-to-play game, it is have never been sold as such, but most SOE games are free-to-play with option of buying additional content. Maybe use Planetside 2 for example in your comparison of free-to-play games, but you may like operating a different standard to suit whatever point you are trying to make.

Sorry but no its not clear what you mean.

Well if I say all possible directions of change, I don't know how you can assume I am saying change from only one of them.

 

[Scaff]

How is it moving goal posts if it is true. You can play some of them games, maybe even a lot of them for free without Gold. Planetside is not a free-to-play game, it is have never been sold as such, but most SOE games are free-to-play with option of buying additional content. Maybe use Planetside 2 for example in your comparison of free-to-play games, but you may like operating a different standard to suit whatever point you are trying to make.

The point was made that only MS charge to play on-line, something that MMORPG's show is completely untrue, with a good number of them still charging subscription rates for a single game that are far higher than MS charge for Live in its entirety.

I have not changed that position at all.

Using Planetside 2 as an example would be stupid to be rather blunt, as I've never claimed that free-to-play games don;t exist, so its not even remotely close to a usable example.

Simple and rather basic question, do games exist on the market that cost you money to play online? Yes or No.

Well if I say all possible directions of change, I don't know how you can assume I am saying change from only one of them.

But you didn't say that did you. I am however glad you agree that both sides will learn from the current generation, but I'm sure you agree that it may be a lesson learnt that people don;t always like.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

The point was made that only MS charge to play on-line, something that MMORPG's show is completely untrue, with a good number of them still charging subscription rates for a single game that are far higher than MS charge for Live in its entirety.

I have not changed that position at all.

Using Planetside 2 as an example would be stupid to be rather blunt, as I've never claimed that free-to-play games don;t exist, so its not even remotely close to a usable example.

Simple and rather basic question, do games exist on the market that cost you money to play online? Yes or No.

It is the way they charge to play online though. It is quite a clear difference.

It is a usable example as you are comparing free-to-play games on one platform but using a game you have to pay for as an example for another. It is fairer to compare how much it costs to play a free-to-play game on both platforms online.

Answer to you question is Yes and I haven't said otherwise.

But you didn't say that did you. I am however glad you agree that both sides will learn from the current generation, but I'm sure you agree that it may be a lesson learnt that people don;t always like.

I did say these directions, whether you want to see another thing, it is up to you I guess.

 

[Ddrizle]

RUMOR: Respawn's Game Possibly Xbox 360/720 Only, Always-Online

The new Respawn game, one of our sources tells us, is made on a modified version of Valve's Source engine, not on internal EA tech. The source believes the game looks very good on Durango but not as good as EA's internally-made Battlefield 4. That source also says that Respawn is only working on the Durango version of the game and is hand-picking a studio to make the 360 edition.

One of our two sources for the new game tells us that Respawn's futuristic shooter will be designed for multiplayer. In fact, they say, the game is always-online. The always-online detail was also offered by our other source. We haven't been able to clarify whether the game would permit offline play.

Microsoft 6 months behind in game production for Durango

We've heard from other sources that Microsoft is not where they want to be at this point in the pre-launch development of Durango. A reliable source — one who was not part of our reporting about the Respawn game — tells us that Microsoft is as much as six months behind in producing content for the new console, despite an expected late-2013 launch. Another tells us that Microsoft recently cancelled several internal next-gen projects because they were not coming together as hoped. These sources have told us that, comparatively, Sony is in better shape and further along with hardware and software development for PlayStation 4.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

^ If they are not ready then they need to bump the Infinity to next year. Or start moving even more of the games to next year. Releasing an unfinished console (like the 360) is a recipe for disaster...again. I only say the 360 was a disaster because of the 3 rrod. I guess we will see how it goes. We already know these new consoles (PS4 and Infinity) will have a lot of problems at launch. Same with the games. First year is basically the community beta testing the new consoles.

 

[LaBounti]

Respawn's game is an online multiplayer game?. No loss for other platforms. This type of exclusivity is odd. I really hope it works and this developer doesn't fold due to the gamble.

 

[cuco33]

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.

I've played a few of the same games on both platforms and I have to say that XBL > PSN still to this day. COD to FIFA, and what's strange is that with FIFA it goes to EA's servers yet I never experience as bad online as I do on PSN. The XBL platform is simply better. With FIFA, as a good example, I experience bad lag every 1-2 games routed through PSN but on XBL, solid. It's been rare for me to have a game that's laggy on X360 especially compared to PSN.

I think it is more likely we will see PSN being a pay to play online like XBL than XBL going free. If that brings a more robust and better PSN then I am all for it but I can not deny that PSN has made some very good strides in the past 2 years or so. Being a multi console owner, I win regardless. I'm not locking myself out of great games and features due to bias.

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.

The $10 price hike was in 2010, 3 years ago...
If you use a lot of what XBL Gold has to offer, it really is a no brainer at how cheap it is when you break it out per month. I have Verizon FIOS for TV, internet and phone all in one service, but that FIOS app has come in very handy for X360s in rooms I don't have a set top box, which would cost me $10/mo/set top box just to have TV broadcasting from Verizon alone. See, there's a lot XBL Gold unlocks and offers so I don't only look at it as just MP gaming or allowing me to use Netflix which is 'free' everywhere else. It is 1 fee to go Gold. You aren't being nickled and dimed to death. If you see value than it is worth it, if not then of course it's not. I see more than enough value personally.
One of those things that you get with XBL Gold is cloud storage far superior to that of PSN+. In both cases I can say that I can get FREE cloud storage through companies/sites like Google but we don't mention that. We also seem to neglect how much better the XBL Gold cloud storage is over PSN+ for reasons quite obvious. Hey, cloud storage is 'free everywhere else' so why aren't we asking why PSN+ version of it isn't also free?


Let's also forget that MS invested 1/2 a billion dollars initially to get XBL up and running, far more than any company ever to have a unified online console experience. Only recently did Sony start to catch up, and even so aren't all caught up yet still to this day.

 

[Ddrizle]

RUMOR: Next Xbox to be called Fusion

Fusion is not only a theoretical and iconic to what Microsoft is setting out to achieve, but also is a catchy name that will pop at people. It has a great marketing sense and feel. Getting back to the representations though, the Fusion is also about bringing more people into the equation and wanting to purchase a gaming machine to satisfy their desires for a media unit. With the rumors of two versions being launched, one that will be your typical gaming machine and one having an entertainment and casual gaming focus, it would also represent the effort that Microsoft is applying to bring gamers and casual gamers together into one community.

 

[LaBounti]

The $10 price hike was in 2010, 3 years ago...
If you use a lot of what XBL Gold has to offer, it really is a no brainer at how cheap it is when you break it out per month. I have Verizon FIOS for TV, internet and phone all in one service, but that FIOS app has come in very handy for X360s in rooms I don't have a set top box, which would cost me $10/mo/set top box just to have TV broadcasting from Verizon alone. See, there's a lot XBL Gold unlocks and offers so I don't only look at it as just MP gaming or allowing me to use Netflix which is 'free' everywhere else. It is 1 fee to go Gold. You aren't being nickled and dimed to death. If you see value than it is worth it, if not then of course it's not. I see more than enough value personally.

One of those things that you get with XBL Gold is cloud storage far superior to that of PSN+. In both cases I can say that I can get FREE cloud storage through companies/sites like Google but we don't mention that. We also seem to neglect how much better the XBL Gold cloud storage is over PSN+ for reasons quite obvious. Hey, cloud storage is 'free everywhere else' so why aren't we asking why PSN+ version of it isn't also free?


Let's also forget that MS invested 1/2 a billion dollars initially to get XBL up and running, far more than any company ever to have a unified online console experience. Only recently did Sony start to catch up, and even so aren't all caught up yet still to this day.

And I have no interest in paying for those features I have use no for. This is my opinion and it has zero value for me. I like PS+, It has value for me.