surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
CaptainBus
mrandydixon
rexwolf2
AwesomeExMachina
JT Murphy
Corduroy Turtle
Andrew Kauz
Nihil
Ali D
SuperMonk4Ever
ImMatureTony
falsenipple
Handy
LawofThermalDynamics
Eprahim
SteezyXL
Sexualchocolate (PS3)
VenusInFurs
Byronic Man
garethxxgod
GoofierBrute
Wolfy-Boey
Malik
Sean Daisy
Keelut2012
Batthink
ManWithNoName
Caiters
Elsa
I've written and deleted my comment nearly a dozen times, but for some reason I haven't been able to get my thoughts out properly. So for now, I'm abstaining.
BYRONIC
Personally, I don't really play online multiplayer games very often, but I do enjoy playing them occasionally. Since I'm not playing them everyday, I feel like paying a monthly fee for online services just wouldn't be worth it. I'll jump into an online game on my PS3 maybe a few days a month, whenever my PS3-owning friends decide to set up a game.
My other options for online gaming are the PC or the Wii (I don't own an Xbox), but both of these options also give me free online services, assuming I pay the monthly fee I already have just to have access to the internet. If I had an Xbox, I probably wouldn't pay for the online subscription fee just because I doubt I would use it enough for it to be considered a good deal. So I hope that Microsoft's competitors might decide keep the free online service option available for those of us gamers who don't use those services as often as others. I they do all end up opting for subscription fees, I'll probably just stick with the PC for my online gaming.
Personally, I don't really play online multiplayer games very often, but I do enjoy playing them occasionally. Since I'm not playing them everyday, I feel like paying a monthly fee for online services just wouldn't be worth it. I'll jump into an online game on my PS3 maybe a few days a month, whenever my PS3-owning friends decide to set up a game.
My other options for online gaming are the PC or the Wii (I don't own an Xbox), but both of these options also give me free online services, assuming I pay the monthly fee I already have just to have access to the internet. If I had an Xbox, I probably wouldn't pay for the online subscription fee just because I doubt I would use it enough for it to be considered a good deal. So I hope that Microsoft's competitors might decide keep the free online service option available for those of us gamers who don't use those services as often as others. I they do all end up opting for subscription fees, I'll probably just stick with the PC for my online gaming.
GARETH
"The proposition: XBOX LIVE sets a damaging precedent by charging a premium for rudimentary online service."
"XBOX LIVE sets a damaging precedent..."
"damaging"
"damaging"
"damaging"
Sorry, but I'm just not convinced.
Byronic Man spent a lot of time talking about the cost of Xbox Live, how much it costs, the effect it has on your wallet, how much you have to pay for it, etc., but nowhere was I convinced that it was damaging to the industry.
Yes, there are alternatives to Xbox Live that offer similar services for no money.
Yes, Xbox Live will eventually be used as a model for what will surely become an industry standard.
But why are these bad things? Why is paying for a service damaging to the industry as a whole? Because it costs money? This is the entertainment industry we're talking about... why SHOULDN'T it cost money?
Honestly, I can't think of a single industry that offers a service like Xbox Live or PSN and doesn't charge for it.
Just because I purchased this cell phone doesn't mean I get to talk on it for free.
Just because I purchased this television doesn't mean I get free access to cable. (And hell, just because I purchased a cable subscription doesn't mean I get free access to HBO.)
Just because we've grown accustomed to these things doesn't mean they've damaged us.
(I'm writing this from my phone, so I'm sorry if it didn't come across perfectly. Hopefully you catch my drift.)
"The proposition: XBOX LIVE sets a damaging precedent by charging a premium for rudimentary online service."
"XBOX LIVE sets a damaging precedent..."
"damaging"
"damaging"
"damaging"
Sorry, but I'm just not convinced.
Byronic Man spent a lot of time talking about the cost of Xbox Live, how much it costs, the effect it has on your wallet, how much you have to pay for it, etc., but nowhere was I convinced that it was damaging to the industry.
Yes, there are alternatives to Xbox Live that offer similar services for no money.
Yes, Xbox Live will eventually be used as a model for what will surely become an industry standard.
But why are these bad things? Why is paying for a service damaging to the industry as a whole? Because it costs money? This is the entertainment industry we're talking about... why SHOULDN'T it cost money?
Honestly, I can't think of a single industry that offers a service like Xbox Live or PSN and doesn't charge for it.
Just because I purchased this cell phone doesn't mean I get to talk on it for free.
Just because I purchased this television doesn't mean I get free access to cable. (And hell, just because I purchased a cable subscription doesn't mean I get free access to HBO.)
Just because we've grown accustomed to these things doesn't mean they've damaged us.
(I'm writing this from my phone, so I'm sorry if it didn't come across perfectly. Hopefully you catch my drift.)
BYRONIC
"Online multiplayer is a large reason most people buy games with this functionality, and online multiplayer is more and more receiving the time and energy of game developers as it becomes an increasingly prominent feature. That such a large proportion of your game - a selling point, of all things - should be withheld from you in spite of your paying full market price for a game ought to be disconcerting."
If it weren't for this I'd say Live is a great service and not setting a dangerous precedent. But I can't for the life of me understand why so many people shrug this off like it's no big deal. You already paid for the system, game and internet service, now you have to pay the maker of your system to allow you to play a game? again? didn't you do that already? Plus this adds up to at least another $300 if you own the system for more than 5 years.
Also, the question is NOT about comparing Live and PSN (or that shit Wii has), but since that was the basis of everything Gareth argued, I will point out some of Gareth's arguments that i think are just wrong.
"Ease of use" This is totally relative, and personally i find navigating the xbox menus to be much more confusing than both ps3 and wii (and pc).
"Xbox Live's online is just as popular, if not more so, than its competitors" Only in America
"It's why you hear more often than not that multiplatform online games work better on Xbox Live" This is about the developers choosing a platform, NOT the service. and mostly just COD.
"the fact that XBox Live is a premium service again puts the pressure on Microsoft to get you back onto something you're paying for." You can say that again. Ever tried to discontinue your Gold service??? But seriously, Msoft already has your money for the next year... where's the pressure? I think the pressure is equal on both, neither wants to lose any market share.
"huge library of games on XBLA" Ok, not an opinion but let's be honest, a lot of these games are total shit :)
sorry for the length, and i think Gareth made some valid points but Byronic got this one right.
"Online multiplayer is a large reason most people buy games with this functionality, and online multiplayer is more and more receiving the time and energy of game developers as it becomes an increasingly prominent feature. That such a large proportion of your game - a selling point, of all things - should be withheld from you in spite of your paying full market price for a game ought to be disconcerting."
If it weren't for this I'd say Live is a great service and not setting a dangerous precedent. But I can't for the life of me understand why so many people shrug this off like it's no big deal. You already paid for the system, game and internet service, now you have to pay the maker of your system to allow you to play a game? again? didn't you do that already? Plus this adds up to at least another $300 if you own the system for more than 5 years.
Also, the question is NOT about comparing Live and PSN (or that shit Wii has), but since that was the basis of everything Gareth argued, I will point out some of Gareth's arguments that i think are just wrong.
"Ease of use" This is totally relative, and personally i find navigating the xbox menus to be much more confusing than both ps3 and wii (and pc).
"Xbox Live's online is just as popular, if not more so, than its competitors" Only in America
"It's why you hear more often than not that multiplatform online games work better on Xbox Live" This is about the developers choosing a platform, NOT the service. and mostly just COD.
"the fact that XBox Live is a premium service again puts the pressure on Microsoft to get you back onto something you're paying for." You can say that again. Ever tried to discontinue your Gold service??? But seriously, Msoft already has your money for the next year... where's the pressure? I think the pressure is equal on both, neither wants to lose any market share.
"huge library of games on XBLA" Ok, not an opinion but let's be honest, a lot of these games are total shit :)
sorry for the length, and i think Gareth made some valid points but Byronic got this one right.
BYRONIC
Although the way he tried to explain his point was a little convoluted, I think the point is: You need to pay twice on Live to have the same service. And I am not talking about paying for internet connection, but paying for a on-line game and them paying for the right to play it.
Take COD for example. Sure, it does have a single player campaign, but most people buy it for multiplayer. If i bought it for PS3, I just have to pay once, the price of the game, but in the case of the 360, i have to pay for the game AND for the right to use the on-line component. How about Battlefield 1943? It is on-line only and you have to pay Live just for the right to play.
The greatest problem is the precedent, of course. Microsoft can charge you for on-line play and get away with it. How long before every platform adopt the same model? Hope Sony and Nintendo keep on-line play free and make the service being of the same quality as Live, so players start questioning if it is alright pay for the most basic service.
Although the way he tried to explain his point was a little convoluted, I think the point is: You need to pay twice on Live to have the same service. And I am not talking about paying for internet connection, but paying for a on-line game and them paying for the right to play it.
Take COD for example. Sure, it does have a single player campaign, but most people buy it for multiplayer. If i bought it for PS3, I just have to pay once, the price of the game, but in the case of the 360, i have to pay for the game AND for the right to use the on-line component. How about Battlefield 1943? It is on-line only and you have to pay Live just for the right to play.
The greatest problem is the precedent, of course. Microsoft can charge you for on-line play and get away with it. How long before every platform adopt the same model? Hope Sony and Nintendo keep on-line play free and make the service being of the same quality as Live, so players start questioning if it is alright pay for the most basic service.
i'm gonna keep going i don't care that you're sick of me.
what's dangerous to me is corporate greed. it is out of hand in america and the world at large. as consumers, there are very few companies that seek to protect us and treat us as customers, instead choosing to squeeze us dry and continue earning millions of dollars for top executives. i think Live continues this practice and it's dangerous for consumers to become adjusted to being offered services ONLY at a premium fee.
ok thats it.
for now.
what's dangerous to me is corporate greed. it is out of hand in america and the world at large. as consumers, there are very few companies that seek to protect us and treat us as customers, instead choosing to squeeze us dry and continue earning millions of dollars for top executives. i think Live continues this practice and it's dangerous for consumers to become adjusted to being offered services ONLY at a premium fee.
ok thats it.
for now.
BYRONIC
Online multiplayer is a basic portion of many games, ubiquitous, even, in certain genres. For a company to hold that portion of your game for ransom is not a service. Paying is a requirement, because Microsoft isn't going to send you $20 to compensate for the portion of your $60 you won't be able to access. The Live fee is nonrefundable; once MS has your cash, they don't actually care. Call them and try to get a refund, see how much off they tell you to fuck. Since "no refund" is part of the deal, the idea that they have a reason to bend over backwards for you is laughable. You have to pay, though, if you want to be able to do anything. I couldn't even send a text message from their website on silver.
It's easy to talk about games like Gears and Halo, but look at other ones that languish without updates like Monday Night Combat. I paid my subscription fee, but the game I play still gets stuck on laggy servers (hosted on other players' consoles, no less) with loads of cheaters. The PC version, which can be played FREE on Steam, is maintained much better.
But, since it's easy to talk about Gears and Halo, lets talk about all the time that was spent one evening in which I was trying to play Halo with, I believe, Perfidious Sin and a friend of his. For some reason, this friend just couldn't join a party with the rest of us. It inexplicably wouldn't let him in. So as for time and patience... paying for it isn't a guarantee those things will be untouched either. To the contrary, that this flagship game wasn't working, on a paid service, was even more aggravating.
The point of all of the above is there's just no justification for paying for basic online service. XBL isn't flawless or even more enjoyable, and is decidedly inferior to Steam, which is free. The trumpeting of people not just willing, but proud to pay for it does set a very dangerous precedent. Gaming is already expensive enough without companies being inspired to start bleeding gamers for access to everything they've already purchased. The personal damage might be tolerable, some might say minimal, but the precedent IS dangerous.
Online multiplayer is a basic portion of many games, ubiquitous, even, in certain genres. For a company to hold that portion of your game for ransom is not a service. Paying is a requirement, because Microsoft isn't going to send you $20 to compensate for the portion of your $60 you won't be able to access. The Live fee is nonrefundable; once MS has your cash, they don't actually care. Call them and try to get a refund, see how much off they tell you to fuck. Since "no refund" is part of the deal, the idea that they have a reason to bend over backwards for you is laughable. You have to pay, though, if you want to be able to do anything. I couldn't even send a text message from their website on silver.
It's easy to talk about games like Gears and Halo, but look at other ones that languish without updates like Monday Night Combat. I paid my subscription fee, but the game I play still gets stuck on laggy servers (hosted on other players' consoles, no less) with loads of cheaters. The PC version, which can be played FREE on Steam, is maintained much better.
But, since it's easy to talk about Gears and Halo, lets talk about all the time that was spent one evening in which I was trying to play Halo with, I believe, Perfidious Sin and a friend of his. For some reason, this friend just couldn't join a party with the rest of us. It inexplicably wouldn't let him in. So as for time and patience... paying for it isn't a guarantee those things will be untouched either. To the contrary, that this flagship game wasn't working, on a paid service, was even more aggravating.
The point of all of the above is there's just no justification for paying for basic online service. XBL isn't flawless or even more enjoyable, and is decidedly inferior to Steam, which is free. The trumpeting of people not just willing, but proud to pay for it does set a very dangerous precedent. Gaming is already expensive enough without companies being inspired to start bleeding gamers for access to everything they've already purchased. The personal damage might be tolerable, some might say minimal, but the precedent IS dangerous.
@dr_spaceman__
"You already paid for the system, game and internet service, now you have to pay the maker of your system to allow you to play a game?"
This should have been the entire "for" argument :)
@Trev
"The point of all of the above is there's just no justification for paying for basic online service."
You act as if these networks just maintain themselves, free of charge. You might not LIKE paying for it, you might even think it's a damaging precedent, but to say that there is NO justification is a bit dramatic, don't you think?
Multiplayer gaming represents a cost for console makers that single-player gaming does not, and that is a FACT. Supporting a network like Xbox Live or PSN costs a lot of money, and for the ability to play games online, I think it is FAIR to be asked to compensate the console makers for the ever-increasing costs this feature requires.
For me, Xbox Live is a network that I pay to have access to, and I'd just as gladly pay for access to Sony's network and Nintendo's network (if there were such a thing) should they require it.
"You already paid for the system, game and internet service, now you have to pay the maker of your system to allow you to play a game?"
This should have been the entire "for" argument :)
@Trev
"The point of all of the above is there's just no justification for paying for basic online service."
You act as if these networks just maintain themselves, free of charge. You might not LIKE paying for it, you might even think it's a damaging precedent, but to say that there is NO justification is a bit dramatic, don't you think?
Multiplayer gaming represents a cost for console makers that single-player gaming does not, and that is a FACT. Supporting a network like Xbox Live or PSN costs a lot of money, and for the ability to play games online, I think it is FAIR to be asked to compensate the console makers for the ever-increasing costs this feature requires.
For me, Xbox Live is a network that I pay to have access to, and I'd just as gladly pay for access to Sony's network and Nintendo's network (if there were such a thing) should they require it.
BYRONIC MAN... in addition to his argument, I think that the subscription fees for Live started at a time when online gaming was still an "extra". Not many games had online and not a lot of people had strong internet service. Times have changed. Online gaming IS gaming and increasingly games have a stronger online component, with an increasing number of games being online-only. Paying for the "privilege" of online play no longer makes any sense.
It really is time that this basic component of gaming be free... on all platforms.
It really is time that this basic component of gaming be free... on all platforms.
BYRONIC
I own an XBox 360, and I've paid and renewed the 12-month membership twice. Now, I have no problem with the service myself, and you'd expect as a result that I'd defend it to the hilt for the quality of service, etc. However, I prefer to think about the people who are running on tight budgets (even more so in this age where we have just hit a big recession) and offer my support to them. They are the ones who will be forced to shell out more hard-earned cash just to play games (which likely they will have paid money for) with friends over the internet (money for broadband, too), and keep in contact for them.
Admittedly, Microsoft have done a good job recently of trying to soften the blow to existing members by inplementing its 'rewards' system (free gamerpoints for entering surveys and staying in gold subscriptions, refunding points and avater item giveaways, etc on certain purchases, chances to win more points and access to VIP events). Then again, I believe that these, along with the two-day Gold codes/weekend Gold-access events, are putting extra pressure on those who don't have the subscription to obtain it. Sure, Microsoft have every right to do that, since they are out to make a profit, but it is clear that no-one is going to sit on their backside to wait for a three-day period to play the multiplayer section of their game. In a sense, the Gold subscription is almost compulsory as a result.
If all home games consoles are going to adopt this kind of system (which, let's face it, is very profitable), then it shuts out those who cannot afford to play multiplayer on a regular basis. If I didn't have the money to throw around, I'd prefer a system like Playstation Plus, where you aren't penalised for wanting to play online if you don't have or want it.
And consider the life-span of the games consoles; will the subscription charges still be in place when it is time to move to that next generation of the console you have? Will the developer lower the price, or drop it completely? And will there be a day when the online multiplayer service finally stops? It seems nice that the company will look favourably on the consumer when they realise that online communities will need to be supported when it is time to move on, but the temptation is also there to keep a high subscription price in place for as long as possible.
I own an XBox 360, and I've paid and renewed the 12-month membership twice. Now, I have no problem with the service myself, and you'd expect as a result that I'd defend it to the hilt for the quality of service, etc. However, I prefer to think about the people who are running on tight budgets (even more so in this age where we have just hit a big recession) and offer my support to them. They are the ones who will be forced to shell out more hard-earned cash just to play games (which likely they will have paid money for) with friends over the internet (money for broadband, too), and keep in contact for them.
Admittedly, Microsoft have done a good job recently of trying to soften the blow to existing members by inplementing its 'rewards' system (free gamerpoints for entering surveys and staying in gold subscriptions, refunding points and avater item giveaways, etc on certain purchases, chances to win more points and access to VIP events). Then again, I believe that these, along with the two-day Gold codes/weekend Gold-access events, are putting extra pressure on those who don't have the subscription to obtain it. Sure, Microsoft have every right to do that, since they are out to make a profit, but it is clear that no-one is going to sit on their backside to wait for a three-day period to play the multiplayer section of their game. In a sense, the Gold subscription is almost compulsory as a result.
If all home games consoles are going to adopt this kind of system (which, let's face it, is very profitable), then it shuts out those who cannot afford to play multiplayer on a regular basis. If I didn't have the money to throw around, I'd prefer a system like Playstation Plus, where you aren't penalised for wanting to play online if you don't have or want it.
And consider the life-span of the games consoles; will the subscription charges still be in place when it is time to move to that next generation of the console you have? Will the developer lower the price, or drop it completely? And will there be a day when the online multiplayer service finally stops? It seems nice that the company will look favourably on the consumer when they realise that online communities will need to be supported when it is time to move on, but the temptation is also there to keep a high subscription price in place for as long as possible.
TL;DR (and then I'm done!) version:
Xbox Live costs Microsoft money
PSN costs Sony money
Steam costs Valve money
One of these three companies asks for a fee to compensate the costs of running their network. The other two (currently) do not.
Sony and Valve may offer a better deal, but that hardly makes Microsoft the fucking devil.
(Boner.)
Xbox Live costs Microsoft money
PSN costs Sony money
Steam costs Valve money
One of these three companies asks for a fee to compensate the costs of running their network. The other two (currently) do not.
Sony and Valve may offer a better deal, but that hardly makes Microsoft the fucking devil.
(Boner.)
@andy
as difficult as it is for me to not embrace your boner immediately, i must say this:
those companies (maybe not valve) make money not just from system sales but game sales, licensing, peripherals, percentages from store/marketplace sales, in-system advertising and more. there is plenty of room in the budget for running a network, and they certainly knew of that cost before creating the system. microsoft is greedy. that is bad.
also, if microsoft were dumb enough to release a chart of where the revenue from Live actually goes, i think many subscribers would feel ripped off.
ugh, i think your boner gave me a boner.
as difficult as it is for me to not embrace your boner immediately, i must say this:
those companies (maybe not valve) make money not just from system sales but game sales, licensing, peripherals, percentages from store/marketplace sales, in-system advertising and more. there is plenty of room in the budget for running a network, and they certainly knew of that cost before creating the system. microsoft is greedy. that is bad.
also, if microsoft were dumb enough to release a chart of where the revenue from Live actually goes, i think many subscribers would feel ripped off.
ugh, i think your boner gave me a boner.
@mrandydixon : Aside from the ads they can put in the service, they also profit of every game and dlc they sell in the service. It is basically a racing circuit with an auto shop. With Live, you have to pay to enter the circuit with your car and spend money in the shop inside. With the other services, you go for free and they pay the circuit expenses with the shop profits.
GARETH
Ah apologies if my ignorance of the PSN prevents me from getting a clearer view of Byronic's argument and perhaps, ironically, talking to Gareth on Xbox live party chat on this particular subject may have brainwashed me early on.
Ah apologies if my ignorance of the PSN prevents me from getting a clearer view of Byronic's argument and perhaps, ironically, talking to Gareth on Xbox live party chat on this particular subject may have brainwashed me early on.
GARETH
Although Elsa brings up a point I was about to mention (that Xbox Live began in the dark days of 2002, when the idea of actual dedicated networks for consoles was alien), but that's countered by one thing: Up until April 15, 2010, Microsoft was supporting Live and DLC for Xbox. Not the 360, but the original, which was nearly five years after the console's successor debuted, four years after the console was discontinued and two years after the last game for the console was released.
However, that doesn't really address the arguments, and simply put, Byronic makes plenty of statements about how people paying for Xbox Live are idiots, but doesn't explain how this sets a dangerous precident, defaulting to explaining how it's better to just go with the PS3 despite earlier assertions that the argument would be explained in a way that did NOT compare the services.
At no point in the winding path of his side of the debate did Byronic actually address how, in comparison to a free service, Xbox Live's fees were damaging to the industry or setting a bad precident, instead choosing to offer backhand insults to the intelligence of people who choose to use it, even dismissing the features the service offers that PS3 does not while completely failing to address the focus: How any of this is damaging.
More to the point, he concludes that the fee offers no evidence whatsoever that the experience is better while completely ignoring the fact the PSN was down for nearly a full month very recently. This was due to extraordinary circumstances to be sure, but it was down none-the-less.
Although Elsa brings up a point I was about to mention (that Xbox Live began in the dark days of 2002, when the idea of actual dedicated networks for consoles was alien), but that's countered by one thing: Up until April 15, 2010, Microsoft was supporting Live and DLC for Xbox. Not the 360, but the original, which was nearly five years after the console's successor debuted, four years after the console was discontinued and two years after the last game for the console was released.
However, that doesn't really address the arguments, and simply put, Byronic makes plenty of statements about how people paying for Xbox Live are idiots, but doesn't explain how this sets a dangerous precident, defaulting to explaining how it's better to just go with the PS3 despite earlier assertions that the argument would be explained in a way that did NOT compare the services.
At no point in the winding path of his side of the debate did Byronic actually address how, in comparison to a free service, Xbox Live's fees were damaging to the industry or setting a bad precident, instead choosing to offer backhand insults to the intelligence of people who choose to use it, even dismissing the features the service offers that PS3 does not while completely failing to address the focus: How any of this is damaging.
More to the point, he concludes that the fee offers no evidence whatsoever that the experience is better while completely ignoring the fact the PSN was down for nearly a full month very recently. This was due to extraordinary circumstances to be sure, but it was down none-the-less.
GARETH,
In a landslide. The only dangerous precedent I've seen this gen was set by Sony, with their cost cutting laissez faire approach to network security. Let's be real here people.
In a landslide. The only dangerous precedent I've seen this gen was set by Sony, with their cost cutting laissez faire approach to network security. Let's be real here people.
BYRONIC
For the people who rarely play multiplayer, paying another fee to play just that portion of a game on top of what you already have to pay for the console, internet and the single player part just isn't worthwhile to me. A lot of gamers are probably a lot like me, particularly if you think about the 'casual' crowd who still for better or worse bring in a lot of money for all the major console companies.
I can accept that X-box's service is the way that it is and for those who spend the most time of their gaming online, it it almost certainly the best console option(although i think steam is still top). When it comes to setting a precedent however, that could be a little alarming, and while there are things to learn from it, im overall happier if the other services continue doing more of their own thing than if they were to just ape Microsoft. I will admit damaging is a strong word to use for the proposition but i can attest that a lot of people would be hugely upset if overnight all online services required more money and it would likely cause a huge loss of business, at least initially.
For the people who rarely play multiplayer, paying another fee to play just that portion of a game on top of what you already have to pay for the console, internet and the single player part just isn't worthwhile to me. A lot of gamers are probably a lot like me, particularly if you think about the 'casual' crowd who still for better or worse bring in a lot of money for all the major console companies.
I can accept that X-box's service is the way that it is and for those who spend the most time of their gaming online, it it almost certainly the best console option(although i think steam is still top). When it comes to setting a precedent however, that could be a little alarming, and while there are things to learn from it, im overall happier if the other services continue doing more of their own thing than if they were to just ape Microsoft. I will admit damaging is a strong word to use for the proposition but i can attest that a lot of people would be hugely upset if overnight all online services required more money and it would likely cause a huge loss of business, at least initially.
@meteorscrap
"Having proven to be such a major source of revenue for Microsoft, it seems incredibly likely to be adopted in the future as a common standard among other service providers as an exploitative auxiliary charge for rudimentary game functionality, much to the detriment of the video game-loving consumer."
Maybe you didn't finish reading the post, this was the last line and clearly states why he thinks its dangerous - i bolded the important part.
"Having proven to be such a major source of revenue for Microsoft, it seems incredibly likely to be adopted in the future as a common standard among other service providers as an exploitative auxiliary charge for rudimentary game functionality, much to the detriment of the video game-loving consumer."
Maybe you didn't finish reading the post, this was the last line and clearly states why he thinks its dangerous - i bolded the important part.
@the floor
One thing that cannot be understated: this is not about a comparison of service quality. The issue at hand is not whether XBL is better than PSN. This is not about which service you personally prefer or which is objectively superior. The matter at hand is one of service value. Gareth's argument details all the areas where XBL trumps its competitors as an online service and I'm sure he's spot on more than otherwise. I have the utmost confidence, however, that the ability to game online is much more important to gamers than all these other supplementary features.
@mrandydixon
"Byronic Man spent a lot of time talking about the cost of Xbox Live, how much it costs, the effect it has on your wallet, how much you have to pay for it, etc., but nowhere was I convinced that it was damaging to the industry.
"Yes, there are alternatives to Xbox Live that offer similar services for no money.
"Yes, Xbox Live will eventually be used as a model for what will surely become an industry standard.
"But why are these bad things? Why is paying for a service damaging to the industry as a whole? Because it costs money? This is the entertainment industry we're talking about... why SHOULDN'T it cost money?"
I should hope that this would be clear from my argument.
"Honestly, I can't think of a single industry that offers a service like Xbox Live or PSN and doesn't charge for it."
PSN is one such service that doesn't charge for online play. As is Steam. As is the Wii's network. And so on.
"Just because I purchased this television doesn't mean I get free access to cable. (And hell, just because I purchased a cable subscription doesn't mean I get free access to HBO.)"
That analogy doesn't quite work. Bear in mind that on xbl you open your wallet thrice: for the console (television), for the game (an individual television program you want to watch), and for cable (Xbox Live). You might find it extortionate to be charged for individual programs in addition to your wider subscription fee - but that is the model that XBL uses.
@Kid23455
I wouldn't have any problem if the status quo promised to remain constant. Considering, however, how profitable the subscription fee model is, it does not at all stretch the imagination to consider it being adopted by all console providers by the next generation.
@meteorscrap
I see you have made quite a few misrepresentations of my argument. First of all, nowhere did I say XBL users are idiots. Secondly, nowhere did I compare the quality of the XBL service negatively to PSN, barring the fact of the subscription fee. Thirdly, my conclusion very clearly asserts the message of the proposition - that this is a damaging precedant - with my reasoning given. Fourthly, it is not my intent to argue whether one service is better than another and anyone who believes I should has missed the point of the debate. This is not about comparing the services' quality, rather it's about comparing business practices.
One thing that cannot be understated: this is not about a comparison of service quality. The issue at hand is not whether XBL is better than PSN. This is not about which service you personally prefer or which is objectively superior. The matter at hand is one of service value. Gareth's argument details all the areas where XBL trumps its competitors as an online service and I'm sure he's spot on more than otherwise. I have the utmost confidence, however, that the ability to game online is much more important to gamers than all these other supplementary features.
@mrandydixon
"Byronic Man spent a lot of time talking about the cost of Xbox Live, how much it costs, the effect it has on your wallet, how much you have to pay for it, etc., but nowhere was I convinced that it was damaging to the industry.
"Yes, there are alternatives to Xbox Live that offer similar services for no money.
"Yes, Xbox Live will eventually be used as a model for what will surely become an industry standard.
"But why are these bad things? Why is paying for a service damaging to the industry as a whole? Because it costs money? This is the entertainment industry we're talking about... why SHOULDN'T it cost money?"
I should hope that this would be clear from my argument.
"Honestly, I can't think of a single industry that offers a service like Xbox Live or PSN and doesn't charge for it."
PSN is one such service that doesn't charge for online play. As is Steam. As is the Wii's network. And so on.
"Just because I purchased this television doesn't mean I get free access to cable. (And hell, just because I purchased a cable subscription doesn't mean I get free access to HBO.)"
That analogy doesn't quite work. Bear in mind that on xbl you open your wallet thrice: for the console (television), for the game (an individual television program you want to watch), and for cable (Xbox Live). You might find it extortionate to be charged for individual programs in addition to your wider subscription fee - but that is the model that XBL uses.
@Kid23455
I wouldn't have any problem if the status quo promised to remain constant. Considering, however, how profitable the subscription fee model is, it does not at all stretch the imagination to consider it being adopted by all console providers by the next generation.
@meteorscrap
I see you have made quite a few misrepresentations of my argument. First of all, nowhere did I say XBL users are idiots. Secondly, nowhere did I compare the quality of the XBL service negatively to PSN, barring the fact of the subscription fee. Thirdly, my conclusion very clearly asserts the message of the proposition - that this is a damaging precedant - with my reasoning given. Fourthly, it is not my intent to argue whether one service is better than another and anyone who believes I should has missed the point of the debate. This is not about comparing the services' quality, rather it's about comparing business practices.
@dr_spaceman__
Maybe you missed the part where I said he doesn't explain why this practice sets a dangerous precident.
His argument begins with:
-Okay, I'm going to explain why this sets a bad precident
-If you pay for Xbox Live, you're an idiot because of REASONS and PS3!
-And that's why Xbox Live is bad.
His argument basically begins by saying that each of us must judge the value of a paid service on its own merits, and then saying that ascribing any value beyond $0 is a wrong judgement and you should feel bad for making it. Except that not everyone is going to make that $0 judgement, which is a rather basic flaw in the argument.
His argument flits about, focusing more on how having to pay for Xbox Live sucks instead of addressing how it could damage the industry. I'm not saying he didn't make any argument at all, simply that I feel his argument is incredibly weak.
@Byronic
First, you made the judgement that a smart consumer should be worried about the price while disparaging Xbox Live's pricing practices. When you say one move is smart, the natural implication is that the other move is not. Second, I never said you did. However you implied that the PSN was equally as good as Xbox Live for performance, in spite of the recent, month-long downtime. Third, until your conclusion, you never link industry perception to Xbox Live's success. It just comes right out at the end.
And fourth... Well, if you didn't want to create the perception of comparison, it would have helped not to mention the PS3 four times or spend a paragraph talking about how you could avoid the fees by switching from Xbox to PS3. Just saying.
Maybe you missed the part where I said he doesn't explain why this practice sets a dangerous precident.
His argument begins with:
-Okay, I'm going to explain why this sets a bad precident
-If you pay for Xbox Live, you're an idiot because of REASONS and PS3!
-And that's why Xbox Live is bad.
His argument basically begins by saying that each of us must judge the value of a paid service on its own merits, and then saying that ascribing any value beyond $0 is a wrong judgement and you should feel bad for making it. Except that not everyone is going to make that $0 judgement, which is a rather basic flaw in the argument.
His argument flits about, focusing more on how having to pay for Xbox Live sucks instead of addressing how it could damage the industry. I'm not saying he didn't make any argument at all, simply that I feel his argument is incredibly weak.
@Byronic
First, you made the judgement that a smart consumer should be worried about the price while disparaging Xbox Live's pricing practices. When you say one move is smart, the natural implication is that the other move is not. Second, I never said you did. However you implied that the PSN was equally as good as Xbox Live for performance, in spite of the recent, month-long downtime. Third, until your conclusion, you never link industry perception to Xbox Live's success. It just comes right out at the end.
And fourth... Well, if you didn't want to create the perception of comparison, it would have helped not to mention the PS3 four times or spend a paragraph talking about how you could avoid the fees by switching from Xbox to PS3. Just saying.
BYRONIC
The moment I stop believing that Xbox Live Gold was a good thing was when a friend of mine tried accessing Netflix, but with a silver account and was denied. He hadn't renewed his Gold membership, so was forbidden access for something he was already paying for.
Basically, what that means is, you have to pay Microsoft money so you can have the option to access something you already pay money for.
Amazingly, MS has done the same to a service it owns itself, Zune radio streaming. So I have to pay a subscription fee so I can be allowed to pay another subscription fee.
Truly, a wonderful service indeed.
Even some Kinect advertised features are locked out unless you get a gold membership.
And like Bryonic states in his argument, online gaming has become pretty much essential for some genres, and an integral part of any gaming console. And yet it's locked out unless you pay a monthly fee? It feels like someone is leasing the ability to play online.
This is not the type of service I want. And it IS a damaging precedent, in fact, I'd argue that the damage is already done. The newly introduced online pass system is eerily similar to the concept Xbox Live Gold presents, isn't it?
By the way, about security, I'm pretty sure the XBL Gold account of some important Microsoft employee (Community manager maybe?) got hacked a few months back.
The moment I stop believing that Xbox Live Gold was a good thing was when a friend of mine tried accessing Netflix, but with a silver account and was denied. He hadn't renewed his Gold membership, so was forbidden access for something he was already paying for.
Basically, what that means is, you have to pay Microsoft money so you can have the option to access something you already pay money for.
Amazingly, MS has done the same to a service it owns itself, Zune radio streaming. So I have to pay a subscription fee so I can be allowed to pay another subscription fee.
Truly, a wonderful service indeed.
Even some Kinect advertised features are locked out unless you get a gold membership.
And like Bryonic states in his argument, online gaming has become pretty much essential for some genres, and an integral part of any gaming console. And yet it's locked out unless you pay a monthly fee? It feels like someone is leasing the ability to play online.
This is not the type of service I want. And it IS a damaging precedent, in fact, I'd argue that the damage is already done. The newly introduced online pass system is eerily similar to the concept Xbox Live Gold presents, isn't it?
By the way, about security, I'm pretty sure the XBL Gold account of some important Microsoft employee (Community manager maybe?) got hacked a few months back.
@Meteorscrap
The difference between my argument and your impersonation of my argument is that I'm not telling people that they should act in this or that way, I'm arguing reasons why they should consider things in such a light. It's ok if you feel my argument is week - no-one's perfect.
As for the other points: 1) I said being concerned about value is smart for a consumer. If you want to interpret this as meaning "everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot," please do not attach my name to your statement. 2) You yourself admit the downtime was an extraordinary exception. And considering online security did not form anybody's a priori reason for paying the subscription fee and is only being used retroactively to validate its existence, the point is inadmissible. 3) The conclusion arises naturally from the premises and is concise in its brevity. Since any dispute of my argument can only legitimately derive from the premises, it is they that warrant length. 4) Again, you misunderstand. I'm not comparing quality - I'm addressing the fact of a fee between a service with a fee to a service without one.
The difference between my argument and your impersonation of my argument is that I'm not telling people that they should act in this or that way, I'm arguing reasons why they should consider things in such a light. It's ok if you feel my argument is week - no-one's perfect.
As for the other points: 1) I said being concerned about value is smart for a consumer. If you want to interpret this as meaning "everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot," please do not attach my name to your statement. 2) You yourself admit the downtime was an extraordinary exception. And considering online security did not form anybody's a priori reason for paying the subscription fee and is only being used retroactively to validate its existence, the point is inadmissible. 3) The conclusion arises naturally from the premises and is concise in its brevity. Since any dispute of my argument can only legitimately derive from the premises, it is they that warrant length. 4) Again, you misunderstand. I'm not comparing quality - I'm addressing the fact of a fee between a service with a fee to a service without one.
BYRONIC
Microsoft is right to charge for what they offer but I still can't understand how they get away with charging for the actual online play itself. If Live, Steam, PSN on PS3 and PSP, Wii online, DS online and online play with iPods all had a subscription fees, I'd honestly would be a single console owner and miss out on tons of awesome games. Online play is a HUGE aspect of gaming for me and having that service held ransom would just turn me off of the console. One of my favorite games this generation, Warhawk, is an online-only game and still has a huge community playing without being that publicly talked about, something I think has to do with free online play.
Basically I fine with MS charging as long as they others keep free online play with their own optionally money-making program. But if Sony & Nintendo start charging for online play I will definitely see Xbox Live as damaging to this industry.
Thankfully my most anticipated game, Starhawk, is going to have many of the features that makes Live great (parties and cross-server chat for example).
Microsoft is right to charge for what they offer but I still can't understand how they get away with charging for the actual online play itself. If Live, Steam, PSN on PS3 and PSP, Wii online, DS online and online play with iPods all had a subscription fees, I'd honestly would be a single console owner and miss out on tons of awesome games. Online play is a HUGE aspect of gaming for me and having that service held ransom would just turn me off of the console. One of my favorite games this generation, Warhawk, is an online-only game and still has a huge community playing without being that publicly talked about, something I think has to do with free online play.
Basically I fine with MS charging as long as they others keep free online play with their own optionally money-making program. But if Sony & Nintendo start charging for online play I will definitely see Xbox Live as damaging to this industry.
Thankfully my most anticipated game, Starhawk, is going to have many of the features that makes Live great (parties and cross-server chat for example).
"You might find it extortionate to be charged for individual programs in addition to your wider subscription fee - but that is the model that XBL uses."
Actually, this is the exact model the cable company has been using for decades. Any so-called "premium" content (HBO, etc.) costs extra, yet cannot be purchased without first subscribing to "basic" cable.
Regardless, I shouldn't have tried comparing the videogames industry to others; it's almost impossible to do so and have it come anywhere close to 1:1.
Actually, this is the exact model the cable company has been using for decades. Any so-called "premium" content (HBO, etc.) costs extra, yet cannot be purchased without first subscribing to "basic" cable.
Regardless, I shouldn't have tried comparing the videogames industry to others; it's almost impossible to do so and have it come anywhere close to 1:1.
@mrandydixon
I admit I'm not sure how it works in the states but on this side of the pond the basic cable service at least includes several hundred channels, with 'premium' services adding on groups of channels (e.g. sports package, movie package, etc.) on top of the basic package. In comparison, XBL Silver offers the opportunity to add friends and compare Acheivements... but what else?
It's pretty difficult to draw analogies to other industries as the games industry is very niggly. But analogies within the games industry are easily on-hand: consider the 'locked content' method of DLC that upsets quite a few people, where the DLC is disk-base content that is withheld from consumers until they pay an additional charge. Consider, as well, 'battle codes', the recent trend for online FPS', and the zeal with which publishers strive to ween away the used game market by compelling used game consumers to fork over additional cash to play their game. The XBL subscription fee is just as aptly described as withheld content as these practices.
I admit I'm not sure how it works in the states but on this side of the pond the basic cable service at least includes several hundred channels, with 'premium' services adding on groups of channels (e.g. sports package, movie package, etc.) on top of the basic package. In comparison, XBL Silver offers the opportunity to add friends and compare Acheivements... but what else?
It's pretty difficult to draw analogies to other industries as the games industry is very niggly. But analogies within the games industry are easily on-hand: consider the 'locked content' method of DLC that upsets quite a few people, where the DLC is disk-base content that is withheld from consumers until they pay an additional charge. Consider, as well, 'battle codes', the recent trend for online FPS', and the zeal with which publishers strive to ween away the used game market by compelling used game consumers to fork over additional cash to play their game. The XBL subscription fee is just as aptly described as withheld content as these practices.
"The XBL subscription fee is just as aptly described as withheld content as these practices."
I can understand and even agree with that, and I have no counter to that argument. But it can only be considered "withheld content" for as long as Microsoft is the only one practicing it; once it's the norm, it will just be, well, the norm.
And I think that's where we will just have to disagree. You're opinion is that having said norm (pay-to-play) is bad for the industry, while I feel that it is just a natural progression of the current and future console generations due to the costs of keeping networks secure and stable.
Which, I suppose, makes me "part of the problem", no? :)
I can understand and even agree with that, and I have no counter to that argument. But it can only be considered "withheld content" for as long as Microsoft is the only one practicing it; once it's the norm, it will just be, well, the norm.
And I think that's where we will just have to disagree. You're opinion is that having said norm (pay-to-play) is bad for the industry, while I feel that it is just a natural progression of the current and future console generations due to the costs of keeping networks secure and stable.
Which, I suppose, makes me "part of the problem", no? :)
@meteorscrap
I don't care if you disagree with byronic, and i'm not trying to change your mind. but it's obvious you don't grasp the concept of his argument, even after i highlighted exactly what you said was missing. you are simply misconstruing his words just to defend your stance, without understanding what he's saying, and frankly it makes you sound like you're just here to "vote for xbox" instead of debating the merits of each argument.
I don't care if you disagree with byronic, and i'm not trying to change your mind. but it's obvious you don't grasp the concept of his argument, even after i highlighted exactly what you said was missing. you are simply misconstruing his words just to defend your stance, without understanding what he's saying, and frankly it makes you sound like you're just here to "vote for xbox" instead of debating the merits of each argument.
BYRONIC
Becuz Sony gibs da seim thing 4 free. :P
Really, though, the fact that Xbox LIVE forces you into the subscription to enjoy the online portion of a game you already paid for is lame. I understand the subscription may provide some excellent services like party chat and faster downloads, but those are luxuries apart from the game; the game that I already paid for. Elsa brought up a good point that the online play used to be the luxury itself, but now it's a big part of the games being made, and having to pay extra to enjoy a portion of a game I expect the game to come with is not something I think is positive.
Becuz Sony gibs da seim thing 4 free. :P
Really, though, the fact that Xbox LIVE forces you into the subscription to enjoy the online portion of a game you already paid for is lame. I understand the subscription may provide some excellent services like party chat and faster downloads, but those are luxuries apart from the game; the game that I already paid for. Elsa brought up a good point that the online play used to be the luxury itself, but now it's a big part of the games being made, and having to pay extra to enjoy a portion of a game I expect the game to come with is not something I think is positive.
GARETH 's side gets my vote, though perhaps not for the reasons you might think.
I actually nearly agree with the core of Bryonic's argument, that successfully instituting a charge for something that was previously (and is elsewhere) free seems bad for the consumer, at least at face value. Let's even assume for the sake of argument (though we don't know either way) that these fees are not being used to maintain or improve things like matchmaking servers, which Microsoft does host for nearly all games.
I think there is actually one benefit to charging a fee: now the company is accountable for degradation of service. In the free model, if the service goes down or there are problems with certain games (say, cheating), the only reason the company has to address the problems is their own self-interest, to have people continue buying games for their platform and so on.
In the paid model, if the service has some degradation, the company is liable for the problem (maybe even legally so, though I'm clearly not a lawyer), and has a much stronger incentive to fix it. Again, I will venture that the consumer might have legal recourse for something like this.
So while it might be seen as unnecessary and greedy to charge for the privilege to play online on games you purchased, I can't see it as necessarily damaging to the consumer; they gain some rights, but lose others.
I actually nearly agree with the core of Bryonic's argument, that successfully instituting a charge for something that was previously (and is elsewhere) free seems bad for the consumer, at least at face value. Let's even assume for the sake of argument (though we don't know either way) that these fees are not being used to maintain or improve things like matchmaking servers, which Microsoft does host for nearly all games.
I think there is actually one benefit to charging a fee: now the company is accountable for degradation of service. In the free model, if the service goes down or there are problems with certain games (say, cheating), the only reason the company has to address the problems is their own self-interest, to have people continue buying games for their platform and so on.
In the paid model, if the service has some degradation, the company is liable for the problem (maybe even legally so, though I'm clearly not a lawyer), and has a much stronger incentive to fix it. Again, I will venture that the consumer might have legal recourse for something like this.
So while it might be seen as unnecessary and greedy to charge for the privilege to play online on games you purchased, I can't see it as necessarily damaging to the consumer; they gain some rights, but lose others.
GARETH simply because he had more bang with his words and Byronic took too long to pull the trigger.
Subscription based services are the future of media. Want to watch a movie, you pay $10 a month to Netflix not $3 a rental to Blockbuster. Want to play a game online, you pay $60 a month to Microsoft instead of inputting wii codes. While there are alternatives, it is simply more efficient to pay through this subscription. The services and the benefits are there. The consumer is the one who decides if a service is worth it. If Sony had swept past Microsoft, we'd be seeing a different picture in America. However, that's not the case and this model must be examined to see why it truly works.
Online content is one thing, but it's the reapplication of the funds in to Xbox services like indie game development, entertainment support, and filling in marketplace content that showcases how Microsoft is expanding with their service.
At the end of the day, none of us wants to pay for gold. However, we want what it offers. Microsoft is only manipulating demand which is a smart plan and ensures that money gets spent in the gaming industry. It would only be a dangerous precedent if a majority of us didn't want its features.
Subscription based services are the future of media. Want to watch a movie, you pay $10 a month to Netflix not $3 a rental to Blockbuster. Want to play a game online, you pay $60 a month to Microsoft instead of inputting wii codes. While there are alternatives, it is simply more efficient to pay through this subscription. The services and the benefits are there. The consumer is the one who decides if a service is worth it. If Sony had swept past Microsoft, we'd be seeing a different picture in America. However, that's not the case and this model must be examined to see why it truly works.
Online content is one thing, but it's the reapplication of the funds in to Xbox services like indie game development, entertainment support, and filling in marketplace content that showcases how Microsoft is expanding with their service.
At the end of the day, none of us wants to pay for gold. However, we want what it offers. Microsoft is only manipulating demand which is a smart plan and ensures that money gets spent in the gaming industry. It would only be a dangerous precedent if a majority of us didn't want its features.
GARETH
If multiplayer is the core of what you want in gaming...
If a reliable network is at that same core...
If speedy updates are requisite to you...
And you want to play that multiplayer game for a long, long time...
... why the hell would you go with anything less than Xbox Live?
I don't even have a 360, but I can't help but notice they often get updates sooner than PS3 or PC versions of games, be they single player or multiplayer titles. There is little doubt in my mind that part of those subscription fees are money MS uses to give developers incentive to get things patched up quickly.
Multiplayer isn't the core of my gaming diet, so I recently chose to go with PS3 despite the network issues, but I'll add this:
I don't like that they tout free online play, but put it on third parties to keep te servers for games up and running. MS upkeeps the servers for games on Live, but Sony leaves third parties with the tab. That means some online games will have servers go down sooner on the PSN side than they ever would on the Live side of things.
As much as I love Demon's Souls, Atlus USA and From Software aren't keeping those servers up forever. As a late-comer to that game, I almost feel pressured to push myself through it just so the axe doesn't drop on my experience before I can really see everything.
You get what you pay for and in XBL's case, gamers are getting WAY more out of it than those looking at the basics may think.
If multiplayer is the core of what you want in gaming...
If a reliable network is at that same core...
If speedy updates are requisite to you...
And you want to play that multiplayer game for a long, long time...
... why the hell would you go with anything less than Xbox Live?
I don't even have a 360, but I can't help but notice they often get updates sooner than PS3 or PC versions of games, be they single player or multiplayer titles. There is little doubt in my mind that part of those subscription fees are money MS uses to give developers incentive to get things patched up quickly.
Multiplayer isn't the core of my gaming diet, so I recently chose to go with PS3 despite the network issues, but I'll add this:
I don't like that they tout free online play, but put it on third parties to keep te servers for games up and running. MS upkeeps the servers for games on Live, but Sony leaves third parties with the tab. That means some online games will have servers go down sooner on the PSN side than they ever would on the Live side of things.
As much as I love Demon's Souls, Atlus USA and From Software aren't keeping those servers up forever. As a late-comer to that game, I almost feel pressured to push myself through it just so the axe doesn't drop on my experience before I can really see everything.
You get what you pay for and in XBL's case, gamers are getting WAY more out of it than those looking at the basics may think.
GARETH
I don't mind paying for a service when I see that my money is being used to provide a level of quality and ease of use that makes the entire experience worth while. PSN may be free but good lord its a cluster fuck of menus and frustrating download/install waits.
I don't mind paying for a service when I see that my money is being used to provide a level of quality and ease of use that makes the entire experience worth while. PSN may be free but good lord its a cluster fuck of menus and frustrating download/install waits.
It seems like a lot of you have forgotten that video games are a ultimately a luxury. Much like cell phones, cable television, internet access, sports cars, jewelry and designer clothing - they aren't necessary. Luckily, if you want to spend your money on them, you have plenty of options. The decision of which cell phone company to sign a contract with or which video game console to purchase can hinge on a lot of factors, but they vary greatly from one consumer to the next.
Exclusive games may sway one consumer, while the allure of free online play may be more important to another. To claim that Xbox LIVE "sets a damaging precedent" because it gives the consumer another option is completely ludicrous. The only thing that would make that statement even a little true is if Xbox LIVE was able to offer a service that was so clearly better than the others, it made any comparisons of quality completely unfair.
Is that where we're at now? It seems like Byronic Man went out of his way to alter the parameters of the debate in his opening statements, claiming that "This is not a discussion on contrasts of service quality, but rather it is an issue of value." Why? Because he said so?
Quality should definitely play into this debate because the overall quality of a service or product matters. Obviously, it's subjective but so are most things that pertain to our individual perceptions. Do you think that a successful man that can afford a sweet, luxury vehicle second guesses his purchase because he might be setting a dangerous precedent for other drivers by paying a premium price for a vehicle that serves a rudimentary purpose?
No. He buys whatever car he feels appeals to him most and is within his price range, like any rational consumer.
If you do not want to pay for Xbox LIVE, there are three other really decent options for you to choose from - PC, PS3, Wii. The fact that none of the other companies charge for online play makes this debate crystal clear and a little pointless.
Does XBOX LIVE set a damaging precedent by charging a premium for rudimentary online service?
No. You have plenty of free options. Enjoy.
Exclusive games may sway one consumer, while the allure of free online play may be more important to another. To claim that Xbox LIVE "sets a damaging precedent" because it gives the consumer another option is completely ludicrous. The only thing that would make that statement even a little true is if Xbox LIVE was able to offer a service that was so clearly better than the others, it made any comparisons of quality completely unfair.
Is that where we're at now? It seems like Byronic Man went out of his way to alter the parameters of the debate in his opening statements, claiming that "This is not a discussion on contrasts of service quality, but rather it is an issue of value." Why? Because he said so?
Quality should definitely play into this debate because the overall quality of a service or product matters. Obviously, it's subjective but so are most things that pertain to our individual perceptions. Do you think that a successful man that can afford a sweet, luxury vehicle second guesses his purchase because he might be setting a dangerous precedent for other drivers by paying a premium price for a vehicle that serves a rudimentary purpose?
No. He buys whatever car he feels appeals to him most and is within his price range, like any rational consumer.
If you do not want to pay for Xbox LIVE, there are three other really decent options for you to choose from - PC, PS3, Wii. The fact that none of the other companies charge for online play makes this debate crystal clear and a little pointless.
Does XBOX LIVE set a damaging precedent by charging a premium for rudimentary online service?
No. You have plenty of free options. Enjoy.
@Corduroy Turtle: I think the point was that the other companies that offer free online services now might start to take a hint from Microsoft and begin charging for their online services as well, which would make it so consumers wouldn't have the options that they have now. That's why it might be a damaging precedent, because it could influence future services.
I agree with your sentiment though. The current options that are available for consumers today are great, and no one should be complaining because there are plenty of options to choose from. But if those options are taken away, I think that could be a bad thing.
I agree with your sentiment though. The current options that are available for consumers today are great, and no one should be complaining because there are plenty of options to choose from. But if those options are taken away, I think that could be a bad thing.
BYRONIC
I'm too tired for an argument but his was more convincing and well written (although I did like Gareth's argument as well).
I'm too tired for an argument but his was more convincing and well written (although I did like Gareth's argument as well).
@bbain: Anything is possible, I suppose, but let's not pretend like Microsoft stumbled onto some secret way to make money here. They've been charging for XBL since the beginning while Sony and Nintendo have kept their services free for just as long.
The fear that all companies will charge for online play is the same fear that fuels a lot of irrational DLC concerns. Our industry is evolving and people need to either evolve with it or find a new hobby.
The fear that all companies will charge for online play is the same fear that fuels a lot of irrational DLC concerns. Our industry is evolving and people need to either evolve with it or find a new hobby.
@knutaf
I'm no lawyer either but if I'm reading the Xbox Live Terms of Conditions, section 14, they are not liable for any downtime or server issues that occur as a risk part and parcel with the service, and you, the paying customer, aren't granted any special rights for your paying the fee. The only liability they face is the same as every other service provider - downtime is bad for business.
@Corduroy turtle
"Is that where we're at now? It seems like Byronic Man went out of his way to alter the parameters of the debate in his opening statements, claiming that "This is not a discussion on contrasts of service quality, but rather it is an issue of value." Why? Because he said so?"
Alter the parameters? Hardly, they're right there in the proposition - Is xbox live a dangerous precedent for basic online service. The reason I had to clarify these parameters was because I knew they would be misunderstood by a lot of people, yourself included. The debate on console preference was several weeks ago. This isn't a repetition, it's a debate on a different subject.
As for your point that quality (as you describe it) does play a large factor, and Occam's point, and TSP's point, all I can say is to repeat myself that this smacks of warped priorities. Placing importance on prettier menus and quicker download bars over the basic function of online gaming is like putting the cart before the horse.
Sadly, your definition of evolving along with an evolving industry means paying large amounts of money whenever it is deemed necessary by the profiting party for a service that should be free. It wouldn't be so bad, except, as andy says, those who oblige this are part of the problem; the availability of options that you flaunt only exists until Sony and Nintendo adopt the same business model. Considering how kosher so many people here are with that business model and how profitable it is, what reason have you to believe this status quo will persist? Hence, a dangerous precedant.
I'm no lawyer either but if I'm reading the Xbox Live Terms of Conditions, section 14, they are not liable for any downtime or server issues that occur as a risk part and parcel with the service, and you, the paying customer, aren't granted any special rights for your paying the fee. The only liability they face is the same as every other service provider - downtime is bad for business.
@Corduroy turtle
"Is that where we're at now? It seems like Byronic Man went out of his way to alter the parameters of the debate in his opening statements, claiming that "This is not a discussion on contrasts of service quality, but rather it is an issue of value." Why? Because he said so?"
Alter the parameters? Hardly, they're right there in the proposition - Is xbox live a dangerous precedent for basic online service. The reason I had to clarify these parameters was because I knew they would be misunderstood by a lot of people, yourself included. The debate on console preference was several weeks ago. This isn't a repetition, it's a debate on a different subject.
As for your point that quality (as you describe it) does play a large factor, and Occam's point, and TSP's point, all I can say is to repeat myself that this smacks of warped priorities. Placing importance on prettier menus and quicker download bars over the basic function of online gaming is like putting the cart before the horse.
Sadly, your definition of evolving along with an evolving industry means paying large amounts of money whenever it is deemed necessary by the profiting party for a service that should be free. It wouldn't be so bad, except, as andy says, those who oblige this are part of the problem; the availability of options that you flaunt only exists until Sony and Nintendo adopt the same business model. Considering how kosher so many people here are with that business model and how profitable it is, what reason have you to believe this status quo will persist? Hence, a dangerous precedant.
Still not a lawyer, but I've heard anecdotally of Terms of Conditions and EULAs for both companies and consumers not holding up very strongly in court, depending on what the complaint was.
Eh, your own valuations of "warped" priorities are too judgmental. Some people hate to wait for things. Some people hate to go through convoluted processes. Some people hate these things even more than they love playing matchmaking games. Some people think it's worth paying just to get rid of those annoyances. If your arguments marginalize these people, then I think that's a weakness.
You warned about this in your opening paragraphs, that the argument would dissolve into the ether. Maybe upon enough examination, that's the only possible outcome of this debate.
Eh, your own valuations of "warped" priorities are too judgmental. Some people hate to wait for things. Some people hate to go through convoluted processes. Some people hate these things even more than they love playing matchmaking games. Some people think it's worth paying just to get rid of those annoyances. If your arguments marginalize these people, then I think that's a weakness.
You warned about this in your opening paragraphs, that the argument would dissolve into the ether. Maybe upon enough examination, that's the only possible outcome of this debate.
@Byronic Man - These "warped priorities" are my own, along with the money I choose to spend. I guess we all perceive "value" a little differently.
You'll get no apologies from me if Sony starts charging a subscription fee for online play.
You'll get no apologies from me if Sony starts charging a subscription fee for online play.
BYRONIC MAN
Disclaimer: My XBL knowledge is limited, so if any of my points are wrong please correct me
If what Wolfy said was true that you have to pay for a gold account to use Netflix, then the analogy of holding features ransom is somewhat true. You payed for a 360, you have an internet connection, and you're paying for Netflix, there is no reason for Microsoft to block that other than greed. Netflix is using the money from your subscription to broadcast you you're media, so it's not a question of losing money.
I did a quick google search of people that couldn't play their Xbox games while being offline when they replaced their systems, taking into account how many people had their 360's rrod (happened to my brother twice) it'd say this was probably a somewhat common issue. I'm sure this was an anti-piracy measure or something like that, and it seems like getting the problem fixed wasn't that difficult, but it's prevented many users from accessing their games, and you have to take into account how many people just left the problem as is, and never contacted customer service because they simply didn't want to put in effort. Before you scoff at them think about if you've ever accepted an imperfection with something you purchased, just because you didn't want to deal with customer service.
Another thing I don't understand is why you have to pay for a new account. I think that if you pay the fee every account should be enabled to play online that is connected that Xbox, take a family for example, 2 siblings that regularly play games online. I think if you pay for the service you should be allowed to use it as much as you want, letting someone else use the service should be part of it. It's not like they would be eating up any more resources, it's not like they're both playing different games independently online, they would need 2 different console for that. If I had kids I would make them share 1 account, if they complained I would say they were lucky I was paying for the service in the first place. Having 2 or more siblings have to share the same friends and screen name would in most cases hinder their online experience, seeing that playing online is mainly about competition & player growth, having your sibling alter your stats would ruin that experience for most.
Remember this debate isn't over which online service is better, it's whether XBL's business precedent is damaging. I'd say it is, true keeping up servers cost money, and compensating them isn't necessarily a bad idea, but their business practice seem more about raking in money than recouping losses, let's not kid ourselves gaming is a business, and the ultimate goal of business is to get as much money from the consumer as possible.
There's been mention of Microsoft using that money to secure games, but that's a bad thing. What I've heard from many Indie publishers is that Microsoft handles their game service in a bullying manner, they demand for XBLA games to be timed exclusives, and they price the games themselves. Retro City Rampage was suppose to be released simultaneously on WiiWare, but the creator apologized that it will be released on a later date for Wii because of Microsofts perseverance for timed exclusivity. This money isn't going to bring you more games, it's going towards preventing those games from reaching more consoles.
Disclaimer: My XBL knowledge is limited, so if any of my points are wrong please correct me
If what Wolfy said was true that you have to pay for a gold account to use Netflix, then the analogy of holding features ransom is somewhat true. You payed for a 360, you have an internet connection, and you're paying for Netflix, there is no reason for Microsoft to block that other than greed. Netflix is using the money from your subscription to broadcast you you're media, so it's not a question of losing money.
I did a quick google search of people that couldn't play their Xbox games while being offline when they replaced their systems, taking into account how many people had their 360's rrod (happened to my brother twice) it'd say this was probably a somewhat common issue. I'm sure this was an anti-piracy measure or something like that, and it seems like getting the problem fixed wasn't that difficult, but it's prevented many users from accessing their games, and you have to take into account how many people just left the problem as is, and never contacted customer service because they simply didn't want to put in effort. Before you scoff at them think about if you've ever accepted an imperfection with something you purchased, just because you didn't want to deal with customer service.
Another thing I don't understand is why you have to pay for a new account. I think that if you pay the fee every account should be enabled to play online that is connected that Xbox, take a family for example, 2 siblings that regularly play games online. I think if you pay for the service you should be allowed to use it as much as you want, letting someone else use the service should be part of it. It's not like they would be eating up any more resources, it's not like they're both playing different games independently online, they would need 2 different console for that. If I had kids I would make them share 1 account, if they complained I would say they were lucky I was paying for the service in the first place. Having 2 or more siblings have to share the same friends and screen name would in most cases hinder their online experience, seeing that playing online is mainly about competition & player growth, having your sibling alter your stats would ruin that experience for most.
Remember this debate isn't over which online service is better, it's whether XBL's business precedent is damaging. I'd say it is, true keeping up servers cost money, and compensating them isn't necessarily a bad idea, but their business practice seem more about raking in money than recouping losses, let's not kid ourselves gaming is a business, and the ultimate goal of business is to get as much money from the consumer as possible.
There's been mention of Microsoft using that money to secure games, but that's a bad thing. What I've heard from many Indie publishers is that Microsoft handles their game service in a bullying manner, they demand for XBLA games to be timed exclusives, and they price the games themselves. Retro City Rampage was suppose to be released simultaneously on WiiWare, but the creator apologized that it will be released on a later date for Wii because of Microsofts perseverance for timed exclusivity. This money isn't going to bring you more games, it's going towards preventing those games from reaching more consoles.
