The next Xbox

[Benstamania]

It's not a question of the quality of the service, it's an ethical problem of Microsoft putting a feature on the disc behind an arbitrary pay wall that's freely available on every other platform.

But...The online service of every other platform sucks. It's not an ethical problem for me at all. Do I want to group with my buddies, hear no one but them and play a few hours of no lag, no server error games.... Or do I want to be forced into a game room where I can hear everyone talk about everything, have major lag issues and poor server care?

50 bucks a year (or, 30 if you buy from Amazon most of the time) for a great service is a no brainer. I have ZERO issues with paying for Live. Hell, Microsoft even gives out free 48 hour codes to try Live for free to see if you think it's worth it in most game cases.

 

[Benstamania]

Keep in mind.. I don't HATE PSN, I just don't use it. It's a perfect model of what free service is. If Sony comes out with the PS4 and gives us everything Microsoft has given us with XBL and they keep it free... Well, then MS won't have a leg to stand on.

I don't see that happening though. Sony's already testing the "pay for" method waters with PSPlus...

 

[GENERAL RAAM582]

PS Plus is amazing. Just saying. lol

 

[StrainedEyes]

PS Plus is amazing. Just saying. lol

It's amazing... on occasion. It is definitely not amazing month to month. (from someone who signed up day one)

 

[Benstamania]

PS Plus has some benefits but those benefits aren't constant. I do like the "free to + Subscribers" benefits... Even though the games you get aren't really free.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree that Xbox Live is superior to PSN and I do think it's worth the money. I mean, I pay only $2.50 a month (thanks to Amazon) to all the features Bents just mentioned. PSN isn't bad, but I do indeed feel like I'm getting value with my money for Xbox Live. Microsoft constantly updates their stuff and gives us new apps and content. Even though you do have to pay for it, I love that all my media apps and programs are acessible on Xbox Live.

By the way, HBO Go works so much better on Live and than on a PC. I hate HBO Go's PC interface.

 

[craigdbfan]

$2.50 a month? Where's this Amazon offer?

 

[Iceman]

Out of interest what are the main differences between PS Plus & Live? And how much does it cost?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

$2.50 a month? Where's this Amazon offer?

It pops up as a Gold Box deal from time to time. It's all about timing.

 

[craigdbfan]

Sweet I'll keep an eye out for it.

 

[Soapy]

But...The online service of every other platform sucks. It's not an ethical problem for me at all. Do I want to group with my buddies, hear no one but them and play a few hours of no lag, no server error games.... Or do I want to be forced into a game room where I can hear everyone talk about everything, have major lag issues and poor server care?

50 bucks a year (or, 30 if you buy from Amazon most of the time) for a great service is a no brainer. I have ZERO issues with paying for Live. Hell, Microsoft even gives out free 48 hour codes to try Live for free to see if you think it's worth it in most game cases.

I'm not talking about all the bells and whistles Microsoft throws in on their end, which certainly are worth paying for. (Though with all the ****ing ads they throw in your face it ought to be significantly cheaper.) I'm strictly talking about multiplayer. If Microsoft wants to charge for party chat and all that other stuff, great. I just don't think it's right to make people pay for a standard feature that comes with the game they bought when they don't have to do that on any other platform.

 

[Iceman]

Fair point.

 

[Benstamania]

Ah, so what you're saying is on XBL Silver you should still be able to play MP.. just maybe not with things such as Group Chat and whatnot?

Ok, I can agree with that.

 

[Iceman]

Yes, nearly everything seems to be linked to Live & I guess they are trying to make it almost a necessity. I just hope they don't go ahead with (I'm fairly sure they won't) always needing to be online every time you play. That would be unfairly excluding a fairly large group of people.

 

[DrDoom]

No company will EVER make it a necessity to be online at all times. That would be purposely cutting out a huge chunk of their profit.

Sadly but true, all companies are about the bottom line and are trying to make the most money possible.

 

[Benstamania]

I'm indifferent to that. Every electronic device I own is normally always connected to the Internet... So...

At the same time I see no reason for a console to mandate Internet connection to play a single player campaign / story game.

 

[DrDoom]

Im with you on being indifferent. Im always connected to high-speed internet also but I DO realize that alot of people arent. Nor do they even have the option.

 

[Soapy]

I used to hold that opinion too, but then the Diablo III debacle happened and I... reevaluated my position.

 

[DrDoom]

What happened with Diablo 3?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

You have to be connected to the internet to access the game. It'll lock you out otherwise. All your information is stored ont their servers.

It's different with Xbox because they give you the option to play offline, once you want to access ANY online content (even things you already pay for like Netflix) you have to pay for live.

 

[terry78]

Everything is slowly moving towards that with the cloud anyway. Too many people I know already only watch tv via the web or have some kind of smart tv set up.

 

[Soapy]

The extra crappy thing with Diablo III is that Blizzard attempted to justify the need to be online to the play game by saying that Diablo III was a co-op game, that's how everyone is going to play it, and that needing to be online would improve that experience. Well, just two or three weeks a Blizzard dev said that the vast majority of people prefer to play the game in single player. :/

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I don't think I could play D3's single player for more than an hour. My buddies make the game so much more entertaining.

 

[X Knight]

I'm not talking about all the bells and whistles Microsoft throws in on their end, which certainly are worth paying for. (Though with all the ****ing ads they throw in your face it ought to be significantly cheaper.) I'm strictly talking about multiplayer. If Microsoft wants to charge for party chat and all that other stuff, great. I just don't think it's right to make people pay for a standard feature that comes with the game they bought when they don't have to do that on any other platform.

Ah, so what you're saying is on XBL Silver you should still be able to play MP.. just maybe not with things such as Group Chat and whatnot?

Ok, I can agree with that.

yeah, "basic" stuff should be free. If I want extra bells-and-whistles or premium services, then I wouldn't mind paying for that, if I wanted those features.

and I'd classify MP, the simple act of going online to play against others, as a "basic" service.

look at FPS shooter games, or games like Mass Effect 3. I'd argue that MP is a large part of those games, perhaps even more than the single player content. Yet, if you aren't a Gold member on XBOX, you can't access that part of the game. you are missing out of potentially half of the gaming experience.

I'd also put in using an app like Youtube or an internet browser as something that should be free.

I don't have to pay extra to view the web or go to Youtube on my computer, why should I have to pay extra to do that on my XBOX.

something like Netflix? yeah. that should call for an extra charge. that's what I call a premium service.

it will be interesting to see how MS and Sony address this in their next gen of consoles. especially as they continue to push their consoles as "all-purpose" media/entertainment hubs instead of just gaming devices.

already with this gen, the consoles have become more like PCs, and I'd imagine that trend will continue with the next gen.

so, a natural comparison will be made to PCs.

I don't play PC games. but, with a game like ME3, do you have to pay an extra fee to play the MP part? If you don't, why should you have to do that on the XBOX.......

 

[Havok83]

I used to hold that opinion too, but then the Diablo III debacle happened and I... reevaluated my position.

That was more about combatting piracy which is a MUCH bigger issue on the PC than consoles. I dont see online only single player games in the next gen of consoles being the norm. MS and Sony have a better grasp on that. Granted piracy does exist on the consoles, its nowhere near as rampant and open as it is on the PC. The amount of people that would hack the systems and pirate the games doesnt seem to justify the amount of sales they would lose from people that would legitametely pay for the software if they went this DRM route