How Xbox Live is blatantly better than PSN.

[twonunpackmule]

I have no sympathy for you non-Asian heathens.

My d/l speeds have improved on PSN. They must be turning a blind eye.

[rodrigo]

Of course not we all know PSN is far superior. XBL where you pay for cross game chat?? Mind blown. haha

[rodrigo]

http://gizmodo.com/5915635/its-time-...old-to-be-free

http://kotaku.com/5939245/gold-vs-pl...y-of-xbox-live

ill just live these two here.

[rm082e]

http://gizmodo.com/5915635/its-time-...old-to-be-free

http://kotaku.com/5939245/gold-vs-pl...y-of-xbox-live

ill just live these two here.

You missed these two:

So, what did the Xbox division pull in between October 1 and December 31 (its financial "Q2") in terms of actual dollars? About $4.24 billion, says the company in its latest financial earnings statement.


Microsoft Profit Beats Estimates On Xbox


"Billions In Profit" and "Growing Market Share" > your sense of "fair".

[rodrigo]

lol I could care less about how much they make and whether they are growing. If you would have read them they give very valid points. Just because COD keeps growing it does not make it a better game. But hey if your logic is if a product or service makes morney than its better well good for you.

[james]

You missed these two:

So, what did the Xbox division pull in between October 1 and December 31 (its financial "Q2") in terms of actual dollars? About $4.24 billion, says the company in its latest financial earnings statement.


Microsoft Profit Beats Estimates On Xbox


"Billions In Profit" and "Growing Market Share" > your sense of "fair".

While I definitely agree with the point you're making, I think its clear that Xbox Live Gold no longer has the value it once did when compared to Playstation Plus. It used to be pretty easy to argue why XBL was better than the PSN. That is no longer the case. Moving forward, Microsoft needs to add more features to reestablish XBL Gold as a premium product or it runs the risk of losing customers, IMO.

[rm082e]

lol I could care less about how much they make and whether they are growing. If you would have read them they give very valid points. Just because COD keeps growing it does not make it a better game. But hey if your logic is if a product or service makes morney than its better well good for you.

I did read them. It's sensationalist fluff designed to stir the pot among gamers who feel disenfranchised so they will post lots of comments which generates page views and makes the site more money. Soap box rants like that serve the same function as top 5 and top 10 lists.

Arguing Live should be free is no different than me arguing the MSRP on all retail games should be $30 instead of $60. Every time a studio is closed down everyone post the same thing: "Sucks to hear people lost their jobs". Meanwhile Microsoft is making billions of dollars and employs a whole shit load of hard working people who provide a service that is loved by millions of people the world over, but somehow they get no credit for that. They're the big evil corporate jerks.

Makes no sense.

While I definitely agree with the point you're making, I think its clear that Xbox Live Gold no longer has the value it once did when compared to Playstation Plus. It used to be pretty easy to argue why XBL was better than the PSN. That is no longer the case. Moving forward, Microsoft needs to add more features to reestablish XBL Gold as a premium product or it runs the risk of losing customers, IMO.

You are preaching to the choir sir - I dropped my Gold subscription a couple months ago because I no longer see the value in it. Microsoft is investing their money in services that I don't care about rather than first party games I want to play. As a result, they haven't given me a good reason to keep up my subscription.

On the other hand, I've had a lot of fun playing Killzone 3 multiplayer and downloads through PSN seem to be about twice as fast as they were a year ago. With all the full retail games they are adding to the PSN+ service, it seems like a great value proposition. But I'm betting they will charge for multiplayer next time. They can't keep losing money forever.

[rodrigo]

I did read them. It's sensationalist fluff designed to stir the pot among gamers who feel disenfranchised so they will post lots of comments which generates page views and makes the site more money. Soap box rants like that serve the same function as top 5 and top 10 lists.

Arguing Live should be free is no different than me arguing the MSRP on all retail games should be $30 instead of $60. Every time a studio is closed down everyone post the same thing: "Sucks to hear people lost their jobs". Meanwhile Microsoft is making billions of dollars and employs a whole shit load of hard working people who provide a service that is loved by millions of people the world over, but somehow they get no credit for that. They're the big evil corporate jerks.

Makes no sense.



You are preaching to the choir sir - I dropped my Gold subscription a couple months ago because I no longer see the value in it. Microsoft is investing their money in services that I don't care about rather than first party games I want to play. As a result, they haven't given me a good reason to keep up my subscription.

On the other hand, I've had a lot of fun playing Killzone 3 multiplayer and downloads through PSN seem to be about twice as fast as they were a year ago. With all the full retail games they are adding to the PSN+ service, it seems like a great value proposition. But I'm betting they will charge for multiplayer next time. They can't keep losing money forever.

Except PSN does multiplayer for free. Plus there is no excuse for including netflix and other services in Gold when you have to still pay the subscription fee to use them. That makes absolutely no sense at all. They should let their silvers members enjoy all those paid subscription services. Im for the consumer, you seem to be for the corporations. Its like those people saying tax brakes to the rich will create more jobs, when in reality it could not be further from the truth. If they made gold free it would not be the end of MS in the least.

[TheAnalogKid]

I'm all for tax brakes. Especially when only two brakes stop 98% of the momentum. The other two brakes are just sorta hanging around, doing nothing, and then whining when they get put to the wheel a little bit. Goddamn.

But on point - I'm still not convinced Sony is going to go pay to play next gen. I think you will see a similar type of service. Pay for some extra shit, but game play (and cross game chat) will be free.

[Onslaught X]

I'm all for tax brakes. Especially when only two brakes stop 98% of the momentum. The other two brakes are just sorta hanging around, doing nothing, and then whining when they get put to the wheel a little bit. Goddamn.

But on point - I'm still not convinced Sony is going to go pay to play next gen. I think you will see a similar type of service. Pay for some extra shit, but game play (and cross game chat) will be free.

I think this scenario is absolutely possible. Now that Sony has gained some competitive footing by improving PSN to the point where it could be considered to take PSN for free over XBL for $60, to go pay to play would mean inviting a comparison again where Microsoft will have the leg up assuming they're at a similar price range for a subscription. We know XBL is better and MS will probably always have Sony beat there, but if Sony can stay close enough at a low price or free, then that does become an incentive. It didn't quite work for most of this generation because PSN just wasn't really up to par for at least the first few years.

[rodrigo]

I'm all for tax brakes. Especially when only two brakes stop 98% of the momentum. The other two brakes are just sorta hanging around, doing nothing, and then whining when they get put to the wheel a little bit. Goddamn.

But on point - I'm still not convinced Sony is going to go pay to play next gen. I think you will see a similar type of service. Pay for some extra shit, but game play (and cross game chat) will be free.

Ill be for tax breaks when I make millions since that is how the system is set up and get to pay 13 percent in taxes when i should be paying 32 percent in taxes and I dont have to pay payroll taxes either.

But on point MS really needs to add something to gold to make it worth 60 dollars a year.

[rm082e]

Except PSN does multiplayer for free.

I know. Read my previous post. I also know Sony is losing money hand over fist while Microsoft is making billions.

Plus there is no excuse for including netflix and other services in Gold when you have to still pay the subscription fee to use them. That makes absolutely no sense at all. They should let their silvers members enjoy all those paid subscription services.

Sure there is - the user base is letting them get away with charging for it. Why would a publicly held company leave money on the table?

Im for the consumer, you seem to be for the corporations.

I'm not for anyone but myself. As I stated earlier, I no longer think Gold is a good value proposition for my personal tastes which is why I let my subscription expire. But I'm also not diluted. Corporations are in business to make money. It's unreasonable to expect them to give something away when they make so much money off it.

Its like those people saying tax brakes to the rich will create more jobs, when in reality it could not be further from the truth. If they made gold free it would not be the end of MS in the least.

Wouldn't be the end of MS, but they would make less money. Why would they chose to make less money? They don't owe the consumer anything.

[rm082e]

I think this scenario is absolutely possible. Now that Sony has gained some competitive footing by improving PSN to the point where it could be considered to take PSN for free over XBL for $60, to go pay to play would mean inviting a comparison again where Microsoft will have the leg up assuming they're at a similar price range for a subscription. We know XBL is better and MS will probably always have Sony beat there, but if Sony can stay close enough at a low price or free, then that does become an incentive. It didn't quite work for most of this generation because PSN just wasn't really up to par for at least the first few years.

What if they keep it "close enough" but only charge $39.99 per year?

[Onslaught X]

What if they keep it "close enough" but only charge $39.99 per year?

Maybe? Or perhaps combining Pay to Play with PSN+ benefits at $60 to keep some form of parity. I'd rather not pay at all though....PSN+ sounds like a nice deal, but it's not really a package tailored for me.

[rodrigo]

I know. Read my previous post. I also know Sony is losing money hand over fist while Microsoft is making billions.



Sure there is - the user base is letting them get away with charging for it. Why would a publicly held company leave money on the table?



I'm not for anyone but myself. As I stated earlier, I no longer think Gold is a good value proposition for my personal tastes which is why I let my subscription expire. But I'm also not diluted. Corporations are in business to make money. It's unreasonable to expect them to give something away when they make so much money off it.



Wouldn't be the end of MS, but they would make less money. Why would they chose to make less money? They don't owe the consumer anything.

Well Sony is losing money because of other stuff, not because PSN is free. That is like saying Valve is losing money because multiplayer is free in half life. MS is making billions because of windows not because of gold. I agree MS will not let go of easy money since people let them get away with it. But again like you said to me Gold is not worth it anymore.