Rothbart's Rant #18 - "Does Quality Have A Price?" Edition
By Sean "rothbart" Workman

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/interweb_memes/10bux.gif

Go take a leak and grab a drink/snack... I'll wait. Okay, read on (to completion) please. This is one I'm passionate about.

Okay, to be honest, this one's been brewing for a while and I'm not sure I'll touch on all my points in a single rant, but here goes. Who in the hell decided that something you pay for is automatically better than something that's free? How does "cost" factor into quality? Someone give me an actual tangible answer. I challenge anyone to make a compelling argument directly supporting that other than "because I say" or some crap like that.

People always point out how expensive the Xbox Live infrastructure must be to maintain and that Xbox Live Gold absolutely HAS to be a fee service passing that expense on to the customer. This is usually countered with the fact that the Playstation Network (PSN) is crap and it's crap because it's free. I'm sorry... that is SO not necessarily related. Let me point out how flawed that thinking is (surely you had this example explained to you in school). Did you know ice cream consumption is directly tied to violent crime (such as murder and rape)? It has to be true! Ice cream sales peak in the same exact period that violent crimes peak and trail off at exactly the same time. When surveyed, violent crime offenders admitting to eating ice cream shortly before committing their crimes significantly more often than violent crime offenders caught during non-peak times of the year. Therefore, ice cream MUST be bad. Let's get rid of all ice cream... Okay, we'll ignore the fact that the days are longer and heat in the summer causes people to eat more ice cream and in general be out and about more hours of the day, thereby increasing the window and liklihood of those events happening. The point is, what you may initially see as two related items may be completely unrelated. It's all about perspective. And saying PSN sucks "because it's free" is just a stupid thing to say. It may suck (and that's certainly a valid argument), but the fact it's free is completely unrelated.

Do I think Playstation Network is great? No, it lacks many key features that are still being rolled out. But I think a lot of people are incorrectly attributing these unfinished features to the service not costing anything. They're under some misguided impression that Sony's just tinkering away with their online offering and if they were to come around and start CHARGING for it, that added income would somehow make the service better. I'd say you'd be MUCH more on target if you aimed your fault-arrows at Sony not planning things out, not having feature-complete dev kits out in time, spreading themselves thin, not communicating well within the various departments, not having as good 1st/3rd party relationships as they could, etc. Those arguments make a lot more sense than "it sucks because it's a free system and you get what you pay for."

And I really have to credit Microsoft for their constant, unrelenting march to condition their customers. They've successfully brainwashed a lot of people into thinking that it's not only okay to pay an annual fee to access their online service, but it's their God-given duty as a gamer to do so. I've got a little secret for you. I've been using Xbox Live Silver for about four months now. You know what? It's largely the same as what you're paying for. What's different? I can't play online games. You know who can? Windows Live Silver people... you know, the ones on PCs. Why don't they have to pay for multiplayer? Because they won't, that's why. PC gamers haven't had to pay for basic online multiplayer gaming, only MMO players have. With an open market that Microsoft doesn't monopolize, PC gamers have the freedom to tell Microsoft to shove their Gold fee up their ass and happily play games not put out by Microsoft. But people that own 360's have no such luxury. If you want to play online, you're stuck doing it through their system. And apparently the cost of online multiplayer is just too much for one of the richest companies in the world (hint, hint... the rich often get rich by being frugal). You see the only things I noticed I couldn't do when on Silver was send an XBL message via the website to a friend and actually play multiplayer games. My schedule is a bit unpredictable, so I really only missed playing online with friends 3-4 times in that 4 months.

Meanwhile, on my PS3, I played many games with friends and strangers alike... online. With no lag, no problems, etc. Of course since PSN and the PS3 firmware don't support things like cross-game invites or XMB during gameplay yet, it's still up to the individual devs to handle the inviting and matchmaking on a game by game basis, but it works... and it's free... and frankly, I don't think that's necessarily what Microsoft is claiming the expense is from... I keep hearing "bandwidth". Are Xbox 360 games more bandwidth intensive than PS3 or PC games? I only ask because everything else Microsoft offers is still available to the folks not paying for Gold. And what exactly is TrueSkill Matchmaking? They keep trying to tell me it's a valued part of a Gold membership... it would SEEM they're trying to imply I'll be matched with people of similar skills. I can't say I've seen any proof of this... sorry. None.

And WTF is the deal with SELLING dashboard themes? If there's one thing that turns me off, it's blatantly being nickeled and dimed. If it's an animated theme or such that has background graphics floating around or spinning that someone took the time to program/test/etc, then fine... I can maybe see a SMALL fee, but static images?! Come on Microsoft! Open it up to custom user created images/themes. Have you seen a PS3 on a 1080p monitor with a 1920x1080 custom image backdrop? Your dashboard suddenly looks like a Crayola product in comparison... let people use their creativity instead of paying you for your lack of it. Gamerpics... *sigh* Let individuality and expressiveness be FREE! Those should be free across the board... trinkets to accessorize yourself with. It's awesome to associate free gamerpics with achievements or beating a game, make that mandatory.

For the folks nay saying that Sony will charge for PSN access as soon as the install base grows, I'd counter why would they? It's an advantage they've had from the start. When they get closer to feature-matching the 360, sure you could see it as an opportunity for them to say "We're now at the level we feel fine charging for our service, we'll charge <whatever Microsoft charges minus $.01>" but I'd counter, they'll keep their basic service (including multiplayer gaming) free and if anyone's going to change, it'll be Microsoft caving to include multiplayer in THEIR free service if not doing away with the fees altogether. Sony hasn't been shy in saying they expect to find OTHER ways to make money from PSN and even Home. I believe they have a much closer view of what constitutes a "micro-transaction" than Microsoft does, which is ironic because "Micro" is right in their name. The only things Microsoft offers that are priced close to what I would consider a micro-transaction are things that should be included free anyway. Will I be lining up to buy $2 couches for my Home apartment? No. But will I be handing over $50/year to play online? No. If you allow yourself to be conditioned by what Microsoft is broadcasting, you'll continue to be one-upped... we've seen games hit $60 from $50, we've seen massive boycotts of Guitar Hero II song bundles overshadowed by 650,000 purchases, we've seen online multiplayer become a fee-only option. We've seen very little offered for free (and when it is, it's crap like Aegis Wings or Halo 3 themes with the Best Buy logo on them). I mean clearly Sony is not making money yet but we've had Gran Turismo HD, we're getting regular desktop wallpapers, the PSP is now getting free themes from Sony, online gaming is free... just because you can't justify the purchase of a PS3 yet doesn't mean those things are to be scoffed at. These actions are EXACTLY what led to the term Xbot. Someone acting like a Microsoft controlled robot, unable to think objectively on their own, but instead follows the word of control signal from Redmond.

The bottom line is this: Quality dictates quality, nothing else, especially price. Price factors into value. Value doesn't factor into quality either (although quality DOES factor into value). If we could keep all those separate, I think a lot of people would think about things more objectively.

Ha, I've seen themes costing up to 200 microsoft points. Seriously... I wonder if anyone DOES buy those.

I use a custom image in my 360 dashboard and also a custom gamerpic I took with the camera so... I'm pretty happy with it.

I see your point, I've never complained much about the 50 usd a year... but you should know that there are much worse things... say for example, the 10 dollars A MONTH sega charges for playing Phantasy Star Universe (seriously... WHO plays that? what is wrong with them!?)

Wow, where to begin.... Well, first, just want to let you know that there's a lot of free stuff on XBL. Our community gamerpics for one. How did you miss that? There are also plenty of free themes on XBL and most are *gasp* ad free.

I'm an old school computer gamer. Been playing online for at least ten years. My experience with XBL has been the most satisfying online experience yet. Friends list, demos, XBLA demos, movies, tv shows, trailers... most of that stuff in that list is free and there's ten thousand times more content on XBL than the Playstation Network.

I wholehartedly believe that if they charged for online services, Playstation Network would be leaps and bounds better than it is now. You get what you pay for.

Why?

Because money buys people to work on the network. Money buys equipment to keep the network running smoothly. Money pays for online exclusives and bandwith and all that other stuff that is associated with online gaming.

So why doesn't Sony charge a fee to upgrade it? Rothbart, you seem to think that money wouldn't change anything for the network. Seems foolish to believe that to me, but what do I know, I'm a mindless xbot.

Furthermore, you portray Sony as a poor son struggling to provide a service because of absence of forthought and "spreading themselves thin, not communicating well within the various departments, not having as good 1st/3rd party relationships as they could, etc." GIVE ME A BREAK. Sony is one of the largest consumer electronic companies in the world. They've been doing this longer than Microsoft and have 3rd party relationships up the Whazooooo. Just stop.

If you want to rail against charging nominal fees for products created by people who are supposed to be paid for their work, so be it. But it seems like you're railing against XBL because of it's popularity, becasue it's successful.

I wonder what someone who shamefully defends an inferior product simply because people pay for a (far) superior product would be called???

I know Lono and I think pretty much the same, however they could easily (both Sony and Microsoft) arrange for a very high quality service and mantain it free.

Lono, I never said they didn't offer anything for free, but those themes and gamerpics should ALL be free in my opinion... 100 MS points or not... at that point, drop the fee altogether.

And no, I didn't mean to portray them as poor Sony, I meant to imply that they're just doing a piss-poor job of implementing it and should've started MUCH earlier than they have so all this planning and finalizing would've been done before they hit the market, in no way do I think it's the way it is because they don't have the money to implement/fix it.

I've heard Sony is a very compartmentalized company... as can be witnessed by the various asshattery from SCEE over the last couple months... it's almost like they're a different company. And SCEA isn't in super-tight with SCEI either. Those are more important issues than whether they have one more programmer working on their network offering. They need to finalize and decide what the hell they're doing before ANY amount of programmers can implement it.

And Microsoft's popularity only gets me when people willingly pay for poor value things in large quantities. Our "vote with your wallet" campaign against the Guitar Hero II DLC was a prime example... there theoretically could've been SIX MILLION of us that chose to say no (I'm exaggerating for effect), but those 650,000 sales said "Thank you please, may I have another!"

Honestly I think the year headstart Microsoft had with the 360 and the newest iteration of Live was harmful to us as gamers. We had no choice but to pay what they asked. There was no counter to $60 next-gen games so people paid and validated it. There was no counter to large-scale online gaming, so people paid and validated XBL Gold fees. There was no counter but to use Microsoft's themes/gamerpics, so if they offered what you want and deemed it to be for a fee, you had no counter but to pay the price or do without.

Those were my points. Don't take this as me saying Sony's doing everything right. The logic behind PSN being inferior due to price is WRONG. There are MANY, many other reasons it's inferior. If you claim price is one of them, you're misguided. Do you think there's a master plan in place that has everything nailed down and there's like two guys somewhere coding until their fingers bleed? No... I'm sure there's not. They're making half this crap up after the console launched!

I've been meaning to ask you this for awhile, Rothbart...How much does Sony pay you each week? Just kidding.

First off, I seriously think Sony deserves a standing ovation for offering their PSN network for free. If things worked out like they should, then Microsoft would try and compete with Sony and offer XBL for free, but it's never going to happen because there are millions of people out there (myself included) who will pay $50/year to be able to play Halo 3 and Settlers of Catan online with my friends. Should they charge for that service? Yes. Should they be charging as much as they are? Probably not. Do I feel cheated out of money? A little bit, but like you said, there's not a whole lot I can do about it so I grit my teeth, pay the $50 once a year and continue playing online with my friends, because in the end it is worth it to me.

I would love to agree with you that Sony won't ever charge for their PSN, but there is no way that is going to happen. Paying for bandwidth, buying and upgrading servers, paying an IT maintenance staff, paying the staff who is creating Home and the other games on PSN is eventually going to really cut into Sony's bottom line and they're not going to have any choice but to start charging for access to the good features of PSN. They'll hold out as long as they can (which in my estimation will be the very beginning of '09) and it will probably be cheaper than XBL, but they will still start charging.

Also, you are 100% correct about the microtransactions being absolutely ridiculously overpriced. The ONLY thing that you should have to pay for on XBL are the Arcade games. Everything else should be free, because from the looks of it, they spend about 5 minutes making that shit. I think that DLC for games that you already purchased should definitely be free, because you paid 60 ****ing dollars to buy the game in the first place! The DLC should be a reward to the customer for going out and purchasing their game, not another way of swindling $5-10 out of them.


That's my $0.02 on your article.

I wonder what someone who shamefully defends an inferior product simply because people pay for a (far) superior product would be called???

That's a low blow. This was not a defend Sony rant.

I'm 100% convinced that XBLive is not superior because it's a pay service OR that PSN is inferior because it's a free service.

Xbox Live is a 2nd generation implementation that is rigidly defined and has been for YEARS. PSN is a new and still not completely defined implementation. Period. How that's not clear to otherwise objective people, I can't fathom. Adding a fee is great for the service provider, sure. But I've seen NO evidence that Xbox Live needs that money to survive (hell, they've put out Xboxes for HOW many years without worrying about profits?) nor have I seen any proof that money is the limiting factor for PSN progress.

MOST OF THE TIME, the more expensive product is better. And even if you list off 100 things that are cheaper and better than their more expensive counterparts, it is still almost always true. Albeit there are exceptions but it is almost always true, thats why most people associate price with quality. And no im not defending high prices, thats just the way it is.

And Microsoft's popularity only gets me when people willingly pay for poor value things in large quantities. Our "vote with your wallet" campaign against the Guitar Hero II DLC was a prime example... there theoretically could've been SIX MILLION of us that chose to say no (I'm exaggerating for effect), but those 650,000 sales said "Thank you please, may I have another!"

Rothbart, you also know that there was quite a backlash against other DLC that was corrected by companies. Horse Armor, anyone? I don't know what will happen in the future, but I expect Rock Band to have fairly priced DLC to compete with the entrenched Guitar Hero owners... That's my hope anyway.


Honestly I think the year headstart Microsoft had with the 360 and the newest iteration of Live was harmful to us as gamers. We had no choice but to pay what they asked. There was no counter to $60 next-gen games so people paid and validated it. There was no counter to large-scale online gaming, so people paid and validated XBL Gold fees. There was no counter but to use Microsoft's themes/gamerpics, so if they offered what you want and deemed it to be for a fee, you had no counter but to pay the price or do without.

Great argument, probably better than the one you made originally. On the other hand, you do have inflation, and the monopolization of the next-gen gaming for that year. I don't like paying more for something if I don't have too.. but smart gamers usually don't pay full price for games anyway. as for paying for XBL, you pay like 4 bucks a month. I use live like crazy and to me, that's just not a big deal.


Those were my points. Don't take this as me saying Sony's doing everything right. The logic behind PSN being inferior due to price is WRONG. There are MANY, many other reasons it's inferior. If you claim price is one of them, you're misguided. Do you think there's a master plan in place that has everything nailed down and there's like two guys somewhere coding until their fingers bleed? No... I'm sure there's not. They're making half this crap up after the console launched!

To say that charging wouldn't help, is misguided. Making money off of their online service would ensure that they develop the product and make it as good as possible. It seems pretty stagnant to me. I wouldn't be so quick to rail against charging for online. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Home requires a monthly fee either.

MOST OF THE TIME, the more expensive product is better. And even if you list off 100 things that are cheaper and better than their more expensive counterparts, it is still almost always true. Albeit there are exceptions but it is almost always true, thats why most people associate price with quality. And no im not defending high prices, thats just the way it is.

The PS3 costs more than the 360... go figure.

Apparently the answer is for Sony to charge $51/year for Xbox Live and at least a certain segement of the community would dig it.

People are brand-loyal even when they deny it... more people defend Microsoft's ways because that's the system they own and spend money on... even when faced with failing (sometimes repeatedly) systems, they'll brush aside what would normally infuriate them.

I get pidgeon-holed into defending the PS3 so much because nobody else seems to give a rat's ass other than to have fun mocking it. It's a decent system (I do think the hardware is second to none). Is it a good time to buy one now? Weigh that yourself, we're on the first steps of holiday releases and for those interested the value is only going to go up... mine cost me NOTHING. I'm extremely happy with it and the future looks bright. I also have a 360 and Wii... I almost never play my Wii and a lot about the 360 honestly pisses me off... almost the ONLY things about it that don't are the controller and the games available for it. Out of my first 10 months of owning one, I've been unable to use it as intended for six weeks.

And generally, on the whole, just like going to the mall anymore, I can't stand a HUGE portion of the people drawn to it whether it be people I meet at gaming stores, random social settings, or online. I can't even handle playing online in XBL with strangers anymore... the ass to decent ratio is like 50:1. If I don't know someone personally or from a gaming community like this, they don't get on my friends list, period. And I only play with friends.

I guess the reason I am so willing to shell out the cash for XBL is because I had it on my old xbox. I had a ps2 for some time and when I got my xbox and tried XBL it was so much better then the piss poor online play on the ps2. They proved themselves to me last gen and I have had no reason to drop them.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Home requires a monthly fee either.

They've already said the base "Home" will remain free... they're going to try to make money from premium content. True microtransactions. I said it in an earlier rant, someone needs to get it right and it hasn't happened yet. If they offer cool stuff at truly cheap prices, I'd be MUCH more inclined to part with money... Would I pay $.25 to put an Iron Maiden shirt on my Home avatar? Probably. I'm being honest. Would I do it for $.50? Maybe. Would I do it for a buck? No way. It's all in the pricing. If they're smart, they won't model everything on existing implementations. They've recently announced 18+ areas will be in Home (don't get excited, we're talking Casinos, not strip clubs). There will be plenty of opportunities for Sony and other companies to make money. Honestly, I would be surprised to see video on demand services right inside Home eventually.

I think there will be money making opportunities for Sony outside of Home as well, I just think for (at least) a very long time, their "core" features as they've called them, will remain free of additional charge. A smart person could easily find tons of loopholes that could keep that true yet still get people to pay... maybe the future will see a Premium PSN offering with a fee, but you'll almost assuredly be able to play for free (until they announce something, we're simply speculating).

ok... two complaints here!!

A) It was way to long

B) Well.... I don't have a b. But it was still to long.

ok... two complaints here!!

A) It was way to long

B) Well.... I don't have a b. But it was still to long.


Hmm... two words in your post were too short! So we're even! ;)

For the record, you bordered on another pet peeve of mine "Complaining about the length of a post by only posting something like 'I'm not reading that, it's too long'."

So if you read it, complaint duly noted. If you didn't don't say you didn't. I'll send Dave after you... he's got spare time. :rolleyes:

The PS3 costs more than the 360... go figure..[/QUOTE]

Apparently the answer is for Sony to charge $51/year for Xbox Live and at least a certain segement of the community would dig it..[/QUOTE]

People are brand-loyal even when they deny it... more people defend Microsoft's ways because that's the system they own and spend money on... even when faced with failing (sometimes repeatedly) systems, they'll brush aside what would normally infuriate them..[/QUOTE]

I get pidgeon-holed into defending the PS3 so much because nobody else seems to give a rat's ass other than to have fun mocking it. It's a decent system (I do think the hardware is second to none). Is it a good time to buy one now? Weigh that yourself, we're on the first steps of holiday releases and for those interested the value is only going to go up... mine cost me NOTHING. I'm extremely happy with it and the future looks bright. I also have a 360 and Wii... I almost never play my Wii and a lot about the 360 honestly pisses me off... almost the ONLY things about it that don't are the controller and the games available for it. Out of my first 10 months of owning one, I've been unable to use it as intended for six weeks.[/QUOTE]

I was thinking the exact same thing when i said most of the time, I do not think $50 is unreasonable for a year's worth of GOOD online gaming, I do think Microsoft's hardware is crap, and that is infuriating (but their software/games are still the best), and i feel like i get pigeon holed for defending the Wii.

Hmm... two words in your post were too short! So we're even! ;)

For the record, you bordered on another pet peeve of mine "Complaining about the length of a post by only posting something like 'I'm not reading that, it's too long'."

So if you read it, complaint duly noted. If you didn't don't say you didn't. I'll send Dave after you... he's got spare time. :rolleyes:
Ok.... ya got me.

In Dave's spare time... please have him create Cliffnotes for your rants. Thank you.

Damn... time to take my Ritalin. lol

Sorry... about the earlier complaint.

Agree with this argument. Have to say though, microsoft taken the first step for series online gameplay for consoles so they could have made it free but since they where the only one at that time well the sought profit and they went for it. On the other hand sony hade to make it free to counter attack microsoft.

I have one complaint any one who says psn sucks has never used it. I SAID IT!!!!! I own a PS3 and a 360. I have played both to their full extent and i like the ps3 version more! You get what u pay for is completely false. Psn is better becasue it is free and i play agoinst friends all the time on PSN. its simple sent them a sessage saying im starting a game and they go on 2 it it takes 30 seconds. For ppl who say psn is unreliable it workes bvetter then XBL. Ican get on a PSn game faster then a XBL game. I AM WILLING TO BET MY 360 THAT ANY ONE WHO REPLIES TO THIS AND SAYS XBL IS BETTER HAS NEVER THOUROUGHLY PLAYED PSN ONLY READ ABOUT IT.


Rothbart is awsome!!!

Anyone here think Keith and Doug are the same person? Check the errors... it's uncanny..

I have one complaint any one who says psn sucks has never used it. I SAID IT!!!!! I own a PS3 and a 360. I have played both to their full extent and i like the ps3 version more! You get what u pay for is completely false. Psn is better becasue it is free and i play agoinst friends all the time on PSN. its simple sent them a sessage saying im starting a game and they go on 2 it it takes 30 seconds. For ppl who say psn is unreliable it workes bvetter then XBL. Ican get on a PSn game faster then a XBL game. I AM WILLING TO BET MY 360 THAT ANY ONE WHO REPLIES TO THIS AND SAYS XBL IS BETTER HAS NEVER THOUROUGHLY PLAYED PSN ONLY READ ABOUT IT.

you can send that Xbox 360 to

PO Box 25, area code 60118, Dundee, IL

thank you

Anyone here think Keith and Doug are the same person? Check the errors... it's uncanny..

he does make the same stupid mistakes as me but we are different ppl

you can send that Xbox 360 to

PO Box 25, area code 60118, Dundee, IL

thank you

you said 360 games were better not XBL was better

holy shit you guys have a lot to say O.0

This thread went from great to retarded in like five posts. Ah well.....

This thread went from great to retarded in like five posts. Ah well.....

I see how it is, two people didn't agree with you and it's all retarded (http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/interweb_memes/Arguing20Internet20Special20Olympic.jpg) now... :D

I personally have no problem giving 50 dollars a year. (less than the cost of one game) to have a great and feature full online experience. I would rather pay a little money a year to use somehting regularily that works well instead of getting something free that doesn't work well.

I personally have no problem giving 50 dollars a year. (less than the cost of one game) to have a great and feature full online experience. I would rather pay a little money a year to use somehting regularily that works well instead of getting something free that doesn't work well.

Yet another drive by... please define "doesn't work well". As someone else suggested, have you (Spudnik) ever played a game via the Playstation Network? Be honest.

You're conditioned to pay for it. The fact that it works doesn't necessarily mean it's because it's $50/year. Hell, my head has been shaved the entire time Xbox Live has been in existence, how come I don't get any credit?

My shaved head is directly responsible for Xbox Live being good... it's possible.

Sorry Rothbart what i meant to say was that Xbox live has some different features that i enjoy and that while I would rather have it free I wish to play online on my 360 (goodneess knows I can't offored a PS3 or high end PC) and so I don't have much of a choice. I realize that i am falling for the corporate scheme however I don't care all that much. Your right in the fact that I have never played on PSN and should have really not given an unimformed opinion, my apologies.

You really need to take more time to develop your topics because I can disprove your entire rant in less than a paragraph.

You asked: "Who in the hell decided that something you pay for is automatically better than something that's free? How does "cost" factor into quality? Someone give me an actual tangible answer. I challenge anyone to make a compelling argument directly supporting that other than "because I say" or some crap like that."

The answer? The consumer. Simply put if a consumer is paying for something they expect and will get better quality. If they don't get it, then they won't continue to pay. Which in turn means the company will no longer be able to charge for it.

You really need to take more time to develop your topics because I can disprove your entire rant in less than a paragraph.

You asked: "Who in the hell decided that something you pay for is automatically better than something that's free? How does "cost" factor into quality? Someone give me an actual tangible answer. I challenge anyone to make a compelling argument directly supporting that other than "because I say" or some crap like that."

The answer? The consumer. Simply put if a consumer is paying for something they expect and will get better quality. If they don't get it, then they won't continue to pay. Which in turn means the company will no longer be able to charge for it.


But I'm a consumer and I weigh things objectively... and I can see no reason that "free=bad, fee=good" in and of itself. Period. I can crap in a box and tell you it'll cost $5M but it's still crap in a box. Just the same as if I'd gifted it to you for free. Which I'd be glad to do by the way.

Yet another person confident they've got the answer that COMPLETELY misses the point.

Next.


BTW, Spudnik, don't beat yourself up... a TON of people are eager to give uninformed opinions and will confidently rattle off ALL KINDS of things they don't know first hand. The state of the PS3 is tons better than it was at launch, but plenty of people are still stuck with "over-priced, crappy online, no games, huge form factor, ripoff motion control, etc" That's all they'll EVER know/think/say. Props to at least admitting you spoke to something you don't have first hand experience to. Seriously, I mean it. Most people wouldn't have bothered to write that. And yes, clearly Xbox Live outdoes PSN feature-wise.... you're right.

I can crap in a box and tell you it'll cost $5M but it's still crap in a box. Just the same as if I'd gifted it to you for free. Which I'd be glad to do by the way.

Lets make this an accurate analogy. If you where selling boxes and you tell me it's $5M for the box. I buy the box and find out it's crap. I won't be buying another box from you. In fact not only will I not buy another box from you, I will tell my friends not to buy your boxes. In addition I would probably sue you for selling me the crap in a box. Which results in you going out of the box selling business very quickly. That is exactly my point.

Sure companies can sell crap. However if they do so, they won't be selling it for long. In order to get the consumer to keep buying your products you have to provide something they are willing to pay for.

So I don't think I miss the point. I think you are. You asked why does paying for something mean higher quality. I answered that. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not valid.

I do find it funny that you started out your rant by asking someone to provide an argument with something besides "Because I said so", I did exactly that and your response was to tell me I am wrong for no other reason than "because I said so".

So I don't think I miss the point. I think you are. You asked why does paying for something mean higher quality. I answered that. Just because you don't like the answer doesn't mean it's not valid.

I do find it funny that you started out your rant by asking someone to provide an argument with something besides "Because I said so", I did exactly that and your response was to tell me I am wrong for no other reason than "because I said so".


But you didn't. People pay for Xbox Live Gold because they've always had to. There's no other option. They're on their 2nd major iteration of their online service it's going to constantly get better. I've already posted this earlier in the thread but refining a product to make it better and having it cost money to make it better are two very different things.

Do you not think Sony's online offering will improve over time even if they don't charge for it? Do you think it will sit, stagnant? It will improve. If Sony had started back on the PS2 laying down an infrastructure, figuring out what works and doesn't, then when they released the PS3 unleashed a revamped "next generation" online service, don't you think that would be better? Well that's exactly what Microsoft has done. The fact that you have to PAY for it isn't a direct correlation to its quality. IF you want to play online multiplayer (even CRAPPY online multiplayer like Burnout Revenge) you HAVE to pay Microsoft for their service. Would you pay money individually to use Burnout Revenge's online multiplayer implementation? Most people wouldn't. Yet it uses (or at least requires) Xbox Live Gold even though it runs from EA's servers.

You've not proven (I know that's a lot to ask of total strangers that may have no concept of a "proof") that the fact that you pay for Xbox Live Gold means it's good or the fact that you don't pay for PSN means it's bad.

I'm not saying Xbox Live isn't good or that PSN isn't bad. If that's what you're thinking I'm saying, you're still missing the point.

Let me give you another analogy to maybe drive the point home... If you walk outside your house and it's raining, you're going to get wet (let's ignore the possibility of using an umbrella or covered walkway, etc). If we assume that's a fact, can we also assume that if you walk outside and get wet that it's raining? Absolutely NOT! There could be a sprinkler on, a flock of birds could be pissing on you, a dog could be shaking water off, etc. So just because one thing happens (a service costs money) and another thing happens (that service is good) it doesn't mean that one necessarily caused or was even related to the other.

Either you're going to get this or you're not. I can't make it much clearer for you. You've NOT (I repeated YOU HAVE NOT) done what I asked someone to do. You think you have, but you haven't.

And again, if I spend the money on a service that says I won't get wet when it's raining out, I can expect not to get wet. This is unlike if I don't spend the money on a service, where I have no promise that I won't get wet.

The same goes with gaming services. If you pay for a level of service with Xbox Live you are going to get what you are paying for as per the contract you have with them. That is a fact. There is no way around that. They are legally required to give you what you are paying for.

With a free service you there is no legal obligation to provide you with anything.

So with xbox live, you are paying for uptime. You are paying for a well run network. You are paying for content. If they don't provide you with those services, they will owe you money.

With other free networks, they don't owe you anything. So you could be playing your game online, the network goes down and you are out of luck. They could shut it down at anytime and owe you nothing.

Now if you argue that I'm not providing proof, then you need to take a critical thinking class as you obviously don't know what a vaild argument is.

Yet it is not the way that it usually works.

See, if you were to sell hot dogs... would you be able to make better ones if you charged for them? (Properly condimenting them?)

Would you be able to make hot dogs of the exact same quality if you just gave them for free?

You certainly could IF you could absorb the expenses asociated with it. I'm pretty sure both Microsoft and Sony are able to.
However, Microsoft pretty much is obligued to run a quality service if they want to keep their customers. If at any point I felt that the service is not of proper quality, I would stop paying for it. Period.
So, we have Sony, who has a free service. If their service was not of proper quality, what can the customers do? Complain? Stop "not" paying them?

Let's try this some other way... price is associated with quality for a reason. Would you pay the same price for a gold Rolex than a... say, cheap plastic watch from wall-mart? Which one do you expect to have a higher quality?
Do you think they cost the same to make? to manufacture? to mantain?
Just curious...

I'm a little late to this toppic but I'll post my thoughts anyway.

First off, I own all the nextgen consoles and a decent PC. All of them are connected to their respective networks. I try to be as neutral as I can too all those gaming platforms. I like my gaming experience on the 360 better than the PS3 one, but I don't think the PS3 is because of that an inferior machine. May be with the next bunch of games the other way around.


So, to your point rothbart:

I don't necessarily think that cheap equals inferior. There are examples all over the world where completly free things are better than their costing counterparts. BUT those offerings are for the most part either financed via a other system wich makes it free for the consumer (i.e. comercial ad's or systems where only comercial use require a fee) or it is diven by a bunch of enthusiasts who donate their own mony/time to this project.

So in case of XBL/PSN: In my oppinion the success of XBL is based to a good part on the fee MS is charging Gold Members.

When you create a network like XBL and PSN you have to weight the costs it takes the company to create and maintain it, against it's use to the company. Sure this generation Online functionality is one of the big selling points. So you absolutely have to have it, right?
Microsoft did jump on this wagon early. XBL is in it's second generation and not only had they time to learn and improve it, they are a company wich are quite strong when it comes to network technology in the first place. At some point in the 360XBL development they must have said something like

"we wan't all those features available in XBL this time around. How do we make this possible and worth our while."

MS came up with this Silver/Gold scheme. You can bet your soul that that they know perfectly well that this would be something people would complain about but it was a way for them to have all this network stuff inhouse with an constant quality. Sure they could have said that they offer everything free and I strongly believe that this money would have been better off there -as a selling point- then in some of those comercials and events.

Sony had to ask the same questions. They choose another path. They made their service free and (in my oppinion) rushed to get something similar to XBL on the feet. They didn't set some strict rules everyone has to follow and put the major part of the work and load into the hand of the developers. So if a PS3 game want to have multiplayer they have to run their own servers. The experience is not a constant, but may differ from game to game (on top of differences in the network code of the game itself).

So to get to my point: The XBL experience is better this way because there is a common high quality (at least for me) throughout all the games with a common interface, a common friendlist, etc. This is possible because MS is hosting all the Servers and set the rules after developers have to play. This may be a downside in some cases i.e. when there is no crossgaming because MS don't let PS3 communicate to the XBL network. But for the most part i prefer this model over sonys.

As for the cost of the Microtransaction stuff: I must honestly say that of all the microtransactions I did, the only time I felt ripped was after buying a PS3 PSN game. I really hate the fact Sony did not say that there must be a demo of a game in order to appear on the network. When I buy a XBL Arcade game I know exactly what I get.

As for the other stuff like Themes and Gamerpictures: You're right. Those aren't worth a penny to me and I only have the free ones on my 360. But there may be some die hard [insert game here] fan, who just loves his game so much, that he's willing to pay for a theme. (Btw. not having a preview here sucks).

But I digress. My main point is that Microsoft is able to offer a superior service through a number of factors. Head Start in the last generation. Network technology knowlege in the company. But one major point is also the fact that they coud rationalize this all from a cost-benefit calculation to the company.


I have rather a network where I know that I get quality for my money (and I can live with some sporadic downtimes) than what sony is delivering for free right now.

You can put this whole topic to another point of view: Would you pay for PSN if it would deliver the same quality as XBL. Or would you still pay for XBL when it would only deliver what PSN does now.

I know Lono and I think pretty much the same, however they could easily (both Sony and Microsoft) arrange for a very high quality service and mantain it free.

I disagree for three reasons. First of all, Microsoft is a business and like all business it has overhead and cost of doing business. In order to produce a product that is worth having the overhead has to get paid and that overhead involves content creation and all types of labor and development. Second of all, if Microsoft made a free service, would you really want it? Example: XBox Live Silver membership. Third, and lastly, if you are going to have an expensive habit such as computer or console gaming then you should expect to incur some costs.

Oh, and "Whazooooooo" ? lol, is that how you spell that word? lol

Rothbart you post a lot of great articles, but this one you haven't got my agreement on (like that matters to anyone but me I know).

You don't seem to get the point that from an economic standpoint if something is free then no one gains or loses. If no one gains or loses the motivation to make a product or service is not there. If the motivation to make the product or service is not there then that product or service will often (there are exceptions) be less than desirable or nonexistant after a period of time.

These are simple economic laws.

You can put this whole topic to another point of view: Would you pay for PSN if it would deliver the same quality as XBL. Or would you still pay for XBL when it would only deliver what PSN does now.

there it is rothbart. Distilled to its finest point. What say you?

Nice! I love this... I'm going to type up some replies shortly. It'll probably be across a couple replies so if I reply and it doesn't answer your post, wait, I'll most likely be typing an additional reply.

In the meantime, to counter XxAdyxX's question to me...

Would you still opt to pay for Gold if Silver included online multiplayer gaming (assuming every other different between Gold and Silver stayed)?

There's a hidden subquestion in there... think about this carefully.

Now, to get to replying... *cracks knuckles*

Yes because Gold would be a premium service and there would always be additional content, demos, and other goodies that a free service wouldn't offer.

You certainly could IF you could absorb the expenses asociated with it. I'm pretty sure both Microsoft and Sony are able to.


Absolutely they are. Sony arguably has more on the line. A PS3 win seriously enhances the chances of a Blu-ray win which seriously enhance the chances of a Bravia win, etc. Sony is a massive multi-pronged company. I have no doubt that something like an infrastructure for an online service costs money to develop and maintain. I also have no doubt that they're working out ways to try and convince you to part with money for various things. I've never discounted the costs involved.

However, Microsoft pretty much is obligued to run a quality service if they want to keep their customers. If at any point I felt that the service is not of proper quality, I would stop paying for it. Period.


But really, that's your only option. You've invested hundreds (low end) to thousands (high end) on Microsoft 360 related hardware, software, and service costs... and you ONLY option (because just saying "Hey, this sucks!" does nothing) is to cold turkey stop spending money, stoping using their online service, which in turn means you have to stop playing online multiplayer. Microsoft's not dumb... none of these companies are. Their online services are distinct little monopolies. I doubt that'll ever change...

So, we have Sony, who has a free service. If their service was not of proper quality, what can the customers do? Complain? Stop "not" paying them?


Um, yeah. When you boil it down, it's exactly the same ineffectiveness you as a PAYING 360 owner have with Microsoft. I'm not claiming Sony's any better/worse in this regard, but at the end of the day, I'm not giving them money for it... that's a very real distinction.

Let's try this some other way... price is associated with quality for a reason. Would you pay the same price for a gold Rolex than a... say, cheap plastic watch from wall-mart? Which one do you expect to have a higher quality?
Do you think they cost the same to make? to manufacture? to mantain?
Just curious...


Have you used online multiplayer on the PS3? Would you compare it from personal experience to a cheap plastic watch from Wal-mart? And would you also put XBL on a pedastal like a Rolex? I realize your point is made for exaggeration, but MY point is that the distinguishing factors between the differences in XBL and PSN are not that great. What is missing from PSN that XBL has that's worth the fee? It's not online multiplayer, PSN has that (and it's VERY reliable), it's not voice chat, it's not messaging, it's not video chat... what is it about XBL that makes it undeniably BETTER than Sony's offering that justifies the cost?

I mean I can answer for you (as I own both systems), there are some key features missing... but when boiled down to those features, I'm hard pressed to say "Yes please, here's my $50/yr can I have <insert feature(s)>".

I disagree for three reasons. First of all, Microsoft is a business and like all business it has overhead and cost of doing business. In order to produce a product that is worth having the overhead has to get paid and that overhead involves content creation and all types of labor and development.

So is Sony's "free" online service not a useful lure to potential gamers? Is it not an valid value-added feature of buying "the more expensive" console? Yes, we're $200 more expensive but you get a high def video player, you get free online multiplayer with no monthly fee, etc... I mean within that context, does it not make sense from a "business" aspect?

Second of all, if Microsoft made a free service, would you really want it? Example: XBox Live Silver membership.


Did you read my rant? Cost is not a factor for me in determining quality... if the service was exactly as it is now, sure I'd still want it. Keep in mind I just redeemed a Gold membership card last night, but as I said in my rant, I'm coming off of 4 months of Silver. Largely, it didn't matter to me... there were a few times I had friends want me to play R6 Vegas that I couldn't, but largely I get everything I wanted when I wanted it with Silver. To me, Gold is ONLY about multiplayer gaming. Period.

Third, and lastly, if you are going to have an expensive habit such as computer or console gaming then you should expect to incur some costs.


Well yeah, but I keep hearing crap like "Gold's the equivalent of a game a year"... um, okay, I'd prefer to have one more game per year! I'd love to hear how many people really subscribe to Gold out of their total Live pool. I bet a lot of people would be surprised. I'm pretty confident personally that accessories and Live are both profitable ventures for Microsoft. They've successfully gotten the impression into people's heads that Live is so expensive (and it is) that they have to charge for it... would those same people still feel the same way if they knew (and I'm just making this up) that Live memberships bring in millions of dollars of profit (ie. revenue minus expenses). I realize it's a business, but when the guise of charging is because it's so expensive yet you're (quite possibly) bringing in a lot more than you're spending, that's a little deceiving). But, since that's just idle speculation on my part, I'm not going anywhere with it... but if we had those Live numbers, it'd be interested to see what percentage of 360 owners shun Gold completely and also what type of revenue Gold brings in for them.

BTW, how do these espenses not affect Windows Live? You can do online gaming there sans fees.

Rothbart you post a lot of great articles, but this one you haven't got my agreement on (like that matters to anyone but me I know).


I always value well thought out and presented discussions even if I don't agree with them. Props to you for taking the time. Seriously.

You don't seem to get the point that from an economic standpoint if something is free then no one gains or loses. If no one gains or loses the motivation to make a product or service is not there. If the motivation to make the product or service is not there then that product or service will often (there are exceptions) be less than desirable or nonexistant after a period of time.

These are simple economic laws.


Sony's best chance right now is to outdo Microsoft wherever they can. But you can't just jump out and out-do Xbox Live. But what you can do is tackle the most important features immediately and do whatever possible to belittle Microsoft's perceived advantage. And frankly, I see free online multiplayer on Sony's behalf as a cost of the console wars for them. Much like their standard setting backwards compatibility (despite the sensationalistic coverage in the gaming media, it's second to none) I don't see them dropping free online multiplayer anytime soon and probably ever. That's not to say Sony won't introduce premium/fee-based services, items, areas, whatever. I think Sony's vision for their system is going in some directions that Microsoft hasn't ever hinted. While I don't have immense faith in Home jumping out there and sucking money from people's wallets from the get go, I personally can jot down a half a dozen decent sounding money-making ventures on a piece of paper in about five minutes. I'm sure there are Sony employees that have already done this.

As their online service gets closer and closer to Xbox Live in terms of features (people say it's crappy, but it's features that are missing, not quality of service). I've played 40-player online matches on Resistance: Fall of Man many times with no lag, I've played MotorStorm online many times with no lag (the game itself launched feature-barren, but that's a game issue), I've played Warhawk TONS of times in 32-player battles... I can count the number of online multiplayer issues I've had on the PS3 with a single shop teacher's hand... and that's NOT because I haven't been using it... the games have almost all been full. Now I look at Xbox Live games I've played over roughly the same time frame... and I'm being 100% honest here... I've probably had at least FIVE TIMES the number of problems... lagging, dropping from games, trouble getting people into games (yeah Burnout Revenge, I'm staring at you!), etc. People keep speaking to the quality of XBL. What "real" recourse do I as a paying customer have when I do have those XBL problems? Have you ever tried to call Microsoft for help with these things? I've tried with other problems and it's always an execrcise in futility.

So we're left mainly with differentiating features that separate Xbox Live Gold and Sony's online offering. Because when comparing strictly online multiplayer, I've had a lot more trouble with XBL games than PS3 games.

Yes because Gold would be a premium service and there would always be additional content, demos, and other goodies that a free service wouldn't offer.

Please elaborate. You'd pay $50 a year to get demos a week or two sooner? What other additional content and goodies?

<"So is Sony's "free" online service not a useful lure to potential gamers? Is it not an valid value-added feature of buying "the more expensive" console? Yes, we're $200 more expensive but you get a high def video player, you get free online multiplayer with no monthly fee, etc... I mean within that context, does it not make sense from a "business" aspect?">

Well, people don't a PS3 for the online multiplayer experience and we all know that is true. Sony's "free" online service is just a small perk and not considered a "feature" to many of the people that I know including myself. And as for the Blu-Ray capabilities MS has dropped the price on their HD DVD player and tossed in several HD DVD movies free of charge. So take that for value. :P

<"Did you read my rant? Cost is not a factor for me in determining quality... if the service was exactly as it is now, sure I'd still want it. Keep in mind I just redeemed a Gold membership card last night, but as I said in my rant, I'm coming off of 4 months of Silver. Largely, it didn't matter to me... there were a few times I had friends want me to play R6 Vegas that I couldn't, but largely I get everything I wanted when I wanted it with Silver. To me, Gold is ONLY about multiplayer gaming. Period.">

So it is only about MP gaming, there is your perk and reason for going Gold.

<"Well yeah, but I keep hearing crap like "Gold's the equivalent of a game a year"... um, okay, I'd prefer to have one more game per year! I'd love to hear how many people really subscribe to Gold out of their total Live pool. I bet a lot of people would be surprised. I'm pretty confident personally that accessories and Live are both profitable ventures for Microsoft. They've successfully gotten the impression into people's heads that Live is so expensive (and it is) that they have to charge for it... would those same people still feel the same way if they knew (and I'm just making this up) that Live memberships bring in millions of dollars of profit (ie. revenue minus expenses). I realize it's a business, but when the guise of charging is because it's so expensive yet you're (quite possibly) bringing in a lot more than you're spending, that's a little deceiving). But, since that's just idle speculation on my part, I'm not going anywhere with it... but if we had those Live numbers, it'd be interested to see what percentage of 360 owners shun Gold completely and also what type of revenue Gold brings in for them.

BTW, how do these espenses not affect Windows Live? You can do online gaming there sans fees.">

Going gold has already given me at least 8 games in the last 3-4 months, and that doesn't count XBLA games that are free. I have saved so much money by DLing demos and trying them out before buying them. If you take the $60 cost of each game and multiply that by the number of times I said, "WTF, I would never buy this game!" Then my $50 yearly fee is MORE than worth it.


<"I always value well thought out and presented discussions even if I don't agree with them. Props to you for taking the time. Seriously.">

Thank you!

EDIT: Also, there is one other item we are forgetting when talking about the cost of Xbox Live. Are you forgetting the Leaderboards. The stats, scores, user information that is stored on servers for Xbox Live? What about the Friend's List, party invites, stats on all your friends, preferred players, avoided players, reputation, etc. What about the cost of keeping all that information stored? You would have to have servers with backups with people to operate and monitor. You would have to have qualified people, good systems, lots of power. Have you looked at energy costs lately? How much do you think the electric bill is for ONE server location for Xbox Live? The lists of costs that you are paying for with your $50 a year is really nominal. After all, at least we are not playing EQ again at $15/month. I used to pay for 4 accounts on DAoC at $13/each a month. In actuality for me playing on Xbox Live is a cheap alternative.

I'm a little late to this toppic but I'll post my thoughts anyway.


I really appreciate your input.

First off, I own all the nextgen consoles and a decent PC. All of them are connected to their respective networks. I try to be as neutral as I can too all those gaming platforms. I like my gaming experience on the 360 better than the PS3 one, but I don't think the PS3 is because of that an inferior machine. May be with the next bunch of games the other way around.


So we're on the same page so far. Good to know. ;)

I don't necessarily think that cheap equals inferior. There are examples all over the world where completly free things are better than their costing counterparts. BUT those offerings are for the most part either financed via a other system wich makes it free for the consumer (i.e. comercial ad's or systems where only comercial use require a fee) or it is diven by a bunch of enthusiasts who donate their own mony/time to this project.


And I have NO doubt that we'll see this on Sony's part in the future. We're seeing it now on Xbox Live. Best Buy sponsoring a free Halo 3 theme... Old Spice sponsoring the Old Spice Gamer's challenge, etc.

So in case of XBL/PSN: In my oppinion the success of XBL is based to a good part on the fee MS is charging Gold Members.

When you create a network like XBL and PSN you have to weight the costs it takes the company to create and maintain it, against it's use to the company. Sure this generation Online functionality is one of the big selling points. So you absolutely have to have it, right?


Tell that to Nintendo... :D But yeah, clearly this would seem to be the case. So much so that Sony's abandoned it's PS2-era "do what you want" for a more formalized (yet still partially "do what you want") offering this time around.


Microsoft did jump on this wagon early. XBL is in it's second generation and not only had they time to learn and improve it, they are a company wich are quite strong when it comes to network technology in the first place. At some point in the 360XBL development they must have said something like

"we wan't all those features available in XBL this time around. How do we make this possible and worth our while."


I'm with you 100% so far. I think the fact that this is a 2nd iteration of their online service weighs FAR more heavily than the fact Gold is $50/year. BTW, just for the record, it's $7.99/month, $19.99/90 days, or $49.99/year in stores. So potentially, someone could be paying anywhere from $50-$95 a year for Gold. And many people are quick to point out that Sony is primarily a hardware company while Microsoft is primarily a software company. Their expertise in networking technology is not to be ignored, good call nine.

MS came up with this Silver/Gold scheme. You can bet your soul that that they know perfectly well that this would be something people would complain about but it was a way for them to have all this network stuff inhouse with an constant quality. Sure they could have said that they offer everything free and I strongly believe that this money would have been better off there -as a selling point- then in some of those comercials and events.


I'm still waiting for the part where we disagree because usually when people post as much as you did, they're explaining my insanity. But still, I'm on the same page... I feel many of Microsoft's decisions are the product of intense analysis, what-ifs, retooling, etc. I'm sure they boiled the list of features down to ensure the majority of people would want Xbox Live Gold. Why wouldn't they? There's an enormous push to ensure their gaming division becomes profitable this generation. And it's hard to imagine them cranking the cost of things like their hard drives up any more than they already are... and a service like Gold with it's "behind closed doors" expenses and revenues and simple intangible aspect alone make it the perfect candidate for setting an arbitrary price. I'll be curious to see if anything 360-related goes up this generation: MS Points, Live membership rates, movies, TV shows, etc. I realize some of those are more out of MS's control than others... what was even the point of 1 MS point being equal to $0.0125? Analysis probably pointed out that 800 MS Points seems cheaper than $10.

Sony had to ask the same questions. They choose another path. They made their service free and (in my oppinion) rushed to get something similar to XBL on the feet. They didn't set some strict rules everyone has to follow and put the major part of the work and load into the hand of the developers. So if a PS3 game want to have multiplayer they have to run their own servers. The experience is not a constant, but may differ from game to game (on top of differences in the network code of the game itself).


Yet this also happens on XBL (Burnout Revenge being the example that affects me most often). So far, to me, I've had a better experience with actual in-game performance on the PS3. The argument could be made because there are so few people playing games on the PS3, but that's neither here not there...

As far as Sony rushing, I think I'd add that they rushed because they weren't adequately prepared. They've had YEARS to look at Xbox Live for the original Xbox and then the launch of the 360 and the "new" Xbox Live. Years. I feel like they started their implementation in 2006. I won't dispite "rushed", but I think it's their own fault.

So to get to my point: The XBL experience is better this way because there is a common high quality (at least for me) throughout all the games with a common interface, a common friendlist, etc. This is possible because MS is hosting all the Servers and set the rules after developers have to play. This may be a downside in some cases i.e. when there is no crossgaming because MS don't let PS3 communicate to the XBL network. But for the most part i prefer this model over sonys.

Even here I largely agree. I prefer the standardization (although they don't host all the servers, EA still hosts their own). And honestly, I'm betting even if MS allowed cross-platform gaming, it'd be unlikely to happen.

As for the cost of the Microtransaction stuff: I must honestly say that of all the microtransactions I did, the only time I felt ripped was after buying a PS3 PSN game. I really hate the fact Sony did not say that there must be a demo of a game in order to appear on the network. When I buy a XBL Arcade game I know exactly what I get.


Agreed, Sony's policy on demos sucks... or I should say their lack of a policy on demos. I think they should be mandatory... but then again, personally, demos have kept me from spending more money than actually spending it on XBLA.

As for the other stuff like Themes and Gamerpictures: You're right. Those aren't worth a penny to me and I only have the free ones on my 360. But there may be some die hard [insert game here] fan, who just loves his game so much, that he's willing to pay for a theme. (Btw. not having a preview here sucks).


That's Microsoft's counter to Sony not having demos. Selling you something (that we both agree should be free) with no option for return and no preview. It's like those little $2 stapled brown paper bags for kids in the truckstops or such when you're on vacation... you so desperately know what's in that bag is going to be cool and you beg your parents for $2 to spend on it... and when you do, you find out it's just a rubber snake and a Tootsie roll and you feel sorta ripped off, but you can't return it. Damn you truckstops... Damn you Sony... Damn you Microsoft... Damn you Lono (oops! That one slipped...)

But I digress. My main point is that Microsoft is able to offer a superior service through a number of factors. Head Start in the last generation. Network technology knowlege in the company. But one major point is also the fact that they coud rationalize this all from a cost-benefit calculation to the company.


I liked your post very much Nine. It's so refreshing to have a debate/discussion without finger pointing and name calling (I'm sure that'll be in the next post I read from Lono... :D)


You can put this whole topic to another point of view: Would you pay for PSN if it would deliver the same quality as XBL. Or would you still pay for XBL when it would only deliver what PSN does now.


I would probably pay for PSN if I had no other choice for multiplayer, exactly like I am for XBL. Honestly though, if XBL Silver allowed basic multiplayer, that's exactly where I'd be. They could keep the TrueSkill in Gold, they could keep new demos for 1-2 weeks in Gold, they could keep sending/receiving XBL messages from xbox.com in Gold and all the other worthless (to me) differences between Gold and Silver and I'd be happy with XBL Silver (+ online gaming). Because when it comes right down to it, for the majority of the people, I'm sure that's the only meaningful difference between them. Most people wouldn't pay $50 a year if all they were getting was every difference between Gold and Silver except multiplayer.

I liked your post very much Nine. It's so refreshing to have a debate/discussion without finger pointing and name calling (I'm sure that'll be in the next post I read from Lono... :D)

Is it really finger POINTING if you use your middle finger???

o0oo (is there a better way to do a middle finger?)...lol...

:D o0oo (is there a better way to do a middle finger?)...lol...


I think so... behind Major Nelson's head (http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/major_nuisance3.jpg) at PAX. :D But that's just me... (and a tiny bit of Photoshopping...) but seriously, that is me behind Major Nelson at PAX along with several other GCN members...

Rothbart, I have found you a T-shirt; this just came out today.

Rothbart's new T-Shirt.
(http://www.splitreason.com/productdetail.php?id=468)
hehe

Rothbart, I have found you a T-shirt; this just came out today.

Someone at PAX had one that actually flashed!

:D


I think so... behind Major Nelson's head (http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/major_nuisance3.jpg) at PAX. :D But that's just me... (and a tiny bit of Photoshopping...) but seriously, that is me behind Major Nelson at PAX along with several other GCN members...

That. is. awesome.

That. is. awesome.

That's Heather Paladino (wife of Chris of Video Game Show/GamerScore Blog fame). She wasn't very excited that I opted to use her chance to take a picture with Larry for my personal gain, but she was a good sport about it.

I had just done something else goofy and everyone was laugh at that... I can't even remember what I was doing. It's weird... when you're within a certain range of MN, your brain stops working too.

I would probably pay for PSN if I had no other choice for multiplayer, exactly like I am for XBL. Honestly though, if XBL Silver allowed basic multiplayer, that's exactly where I'd be. They could keep the TrueSkill in Gold, they could keep new demos for 1-2 weeks in Gold, they could keep sending/receiving XBL messages from xbox.com in Gold and all the other worthless (to me) differences between Gold and Silver and I'd be happy with XBL Silver (+ online gaming). Because when it comes right down to it, for the majority of the people, I'm sure that's the only meaningful difference between them. Most people wouldn't pay $50 a year if all they were getting was every difference between Gold and Silver except multiplayer.

I agree. I am switching between Gold and Silver on a regular basis. For the most part I'm only a Silver user but every now and then there comes a game I really like to play online. Gears Co-Op was one of those. Or Bomberman. So in those Silver months I am missing absolutely nothing. It's rare that a demo comes later for Silver members (at least here in europe). So if I would get multiplayer with Silver I certainly would not pay for Gold until they would add some significant value on top of it (free movies on the videomarketplace or something).
As for trueskill: Let's say that I'm really really bad when playing console games online. At least I'm getting humiliated every time I try something like Halo or the CoD4 beta. So there are either not enough really bad playing people to cram into a game with me, or this system simply doesn't work the way it should.

We could argue now if or if not Multiplayer alone is worth the (more or less) 50$ a year. The problem is that from our standpoint this is a quite simple equation. But from a corporate standpoint the Gold members are paying for the Silver member Service too.
If MS would stop charging for a Gold service, MS would either have to pay more money and therefore shorten the profits or cut back on the Silver Service as well.
Fair or unfair? Nah I'm not touching this issue.


And: Yes. Thanks. It's really something to see a discussion on a PS3/360 topic without the typical fanboyism.

I agree. I am switching between Gold and Silver on a regular basis. For the most part I'm only a Silver user but every now and then there comes a game I really like to play online. Gears Co-Op was one of those. Or Bomberman. So in those Silver months I am missing absolutely nothing.


It's refreshing to hear someone else say something like that. I expected my 360 to become useless when my Gold expired, but I soon found for me at least, that was 95% perception... that's a compliment to Microsoft's marketing department, really.

We could argue now if or if not Multiplayer alone is worth the (more or less) 50$ a year. The problem is that from our standpoint this is a quite simple equation. But from a corporate standpoint the Gold members are paying for the Silver member Service too.
If MS would stop charging for a Gold service, MS would either have to pay more money and therefore shorten the profits or cut back on the Silver Service as well.
Fair or unfair? Nah I'm not touching this issue.


That's a great point. Honestly, I'm a straight married man. Don't take this string of compliments as anything more... :D It's unusual/uncomfortable how much I'm agreeing with what you're saying. :D


And: Yes. Thanks. It's really something to see a discussion on a PS3/360 topic without the typical fanboyism.


I always try, but on this site (I'm a regular over at www.GamerCastNetwork.com too), there's a certain level of intentional pot-stirring. ;)

Good lord, you two. Get a room already.

I always try, but on this site (I'm a regular over at www.GamerCastNetwork.com too), there's a certain level of intentional pot-stirring. ;)

Lets hop over to neogaf and try this there. ;)




That's a great point. Honestly, I'm a straight married man. Don't take this string of compliments as anything more... It's unusual/uncomfortable how much I'm agreeing with what you're saying.

I have two children, It would be very hard to explain it to them. Better we leave it at the status quo ;)



Good lord, you two. Get a room already.

jealous? ;)

Shame on you, Rothbart. You finally made me register an account.

One important argument I haven't seen here yet about the quality of a "free" service relates to John Gabriel's Greater Internet ****wad Theory (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19). "Normal person + Anonymity + Audience = Total ****wad". When your service is free and has no barriers to entry, you can guarantee the 'Anonymity' part . Sure, you have gamertags, but if you piss off people and get a bad reputation, you can just abandon that gamertag and come back ten minutes later with a completely neutral identity. All you need to do to see this is spend an hour on Battle.NET. Microsoft learned this with the first generation of XBL, and took steps to mitigate it.

This is where the pay service comes in. Now people are invested in their gamertags. Now you can't just abandon your tag at the drop of a hat and create a new one without shelling out actual money - something most Internet ****wads are unlikely to want to do. The fact that you're paying for your identity gives a disincentive to switching. It means that XBL identity actually means something, which is critical for any reputation system to work. (Note that achievements also provide a disincentive to change -you get reset to 0 points). This also explains why it costs $10 (800 MS points) to change your gamertag.

I won't presume to deny the Microsoft-haters out there their opportunity to cry 'Greed', but it is a proven fact of human nature that we take better care of things that we have to pay for. I, for one, am glad that if I put someone on my ignore list, they can't get around it by simply rebooting their console and changing some settings. Of course nothing can stop the determined jerk with a pile of cash to waste creating new accounts, but at least Microsoft has upped the ante a bit.

Lets hop over to neogaf and try this there. ;)





I have two children, It would be very hard to explain it to them. Better we leave it at the status quo ;)




jealous? ;)

Nineswords = Chic?

Shame on you, Rothbart. You finally made me register an account.

One important argument I haven't seen here yet about the quality of a "free" service relates to John Gabriel's Greater Internet ****wad Theory (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19). "Normal person + Anonymity + Audience = Total ****wad". When your service is free and has no barriers to entry, you can guarantee the 'Anonymity' part . Sure, you have gamertags, but if you piss off people and get a bad reputation, you can just abandon that gamertag and come back ten minutes later with a completely neutral identity. All you need to do to see this is spend an hour on Battle.NET. Microsoft learned this with the first generation of XBL, and took steps to mitigate it.

This is where the pay service comes in. Now people are invested in their gamertags. Now you can't just abandon your tag at the drop of a hat and create a new one without shelling out actual money - something most Internet ****wads are unlikely to want to do. The fact that you're paying for your identity gives a disincentive to switching. It means that XBL identity actually means something, which is critical for any reputation system to work. (Note that achievements also provide a disincentive to change -you get reset to 0 points). This also explains why it costs $10 (800 MS points) to change your gamertag.

I won't presume to deny the Microsoft-haters out there their opportunity to cry 'Greed', but it is a proven fact of human nature that we take better care of things that we have to pay for. I, for one, am glad that if I put someone on my ignore list, they can't get around it by simply rebooting their console and changing some settings. Of course nothing can stop the determined jerk with a pile of cash to waste creating new accounts, but at least Microsoft has upped the ante a bit.

Great point.

good point.
But I think the Achievements actually matter way more to the people than the money. I rather loose the 15$ I pay for a month, than the achievements I carefully (and sometimes painfully) collected since the 360 launch.

Now I'm no online junkie, so you can imagine what the typical XBL Jackass with a 20k plus gamerscore would say when he had to erase his precious "Seriously ..." Achievement?

So this attachment to the account would also be existent with a Silver account.

But until Home goes live (and would be supported by games) the achievement system is another big part of what differentiates XBL from the PSN. (Just not from Silver to Gold).


Nineswords = Chic?

No. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. English is not my native language so there may occur some mistakes between what I meant and what I was writing.

I wanted to say that I'm father of to children (2 and 5).

Shame on you, Rothbart. You finally made me register an account.


It's a trap (http://metaljesusrocks.com/gallery/d/880-1/Drop_the_Soap-Its_a_trap.jpg)...

One important argument I haven't seen here yet about the quality of a "free" service relates to John Gabriel's Greater Internet ****wad Theory (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19). "Normal person + Anonymity + Audience = Total ****wad". When your service is free and has no barriers to entry, you can guarantee the 'Anonymity' part . Sure, you have gamertags, but if you piss off people and get a bad reputation, you can just abandon that gamertag and come back ten minutes later with a completely neutral identity. All you need to do to see this is spend an hour on Battle.NET. Microsoft learned this with the first generation of XBL, and took steps to mitigate it.


I'm glad you brought this up omega672... I 100% expected this, but my experience playing with strangers on Xbox Live (the pay service) taught be it's much better to just mainly play with friends always. Between the racists fighting the homophobes during a Burnout Revenge race, and the 12 year olds cussing at the adults. I generally stick to friends. But when I have managed to play say Warhawk with strangers, the incidents of asshatedness I've run across have again, been a lot less.


This is where the pay service comes in. Now people are invested in their gamertags. Now you can't just abandon your tag at the drop of a hat and create a new one without shelling out actual money - something most Internet ****wads are unlikely to want to do. The fact that you're paying for your identity gives a disincentive to switching.


I've left negative feedback about people... it did nothing. I've seen NOTHING on Xbox live that's "effectively" stopped people from being an asshole.

I won't presume to deny the Microsoft-haters out there their opportunity to cry 'Greed', but it is a proven fact of human nature that we take better care of things that we have to pay for.


Well maybe more asshats can afford 360's than PS3s then because if we're simply gauging by the number of idiots you encounter, XBL has an order of magnitude more... be that simply based on scale or not, I had to change my habits to only allow voice communications from friends on XBL.

I, for one, am glad that if I put someone on my ignore list, they can't get around it by simply rebooting their console and changing some settings. Of course nothing can stop the determined jerk with a pile of cash to waste creating new accounts, but at least Microsoft has upped the ante a bit.


Agreed.

Lets hop over to neogaf and try this there. ;)


I post at NeoGAF occasionally and read them daily (multiple times, actually). That means I know better than to try this over there... it's called "an exercise in futility".

I've left negative feedback about people... it did nothing. I've seen NOTHING on Xbox live that's "effectively" stopped people from being an asshole.

Hey, I never said the XBL reputation system worked particularly well. Just that it can't work without a reliable identity system. When I say "reputation" I mean it more in the generic term: Essentially "what people think of you". XBL could do it better, but it's not bad. The "negative feedback" system in XBL is mostly useless in my experience, but the ignore functionality is a godsend. Who cares if they stop being an asshole. At least I don't have to play with them anymore.

And yes, I play almost entirely with friends as well, for much the same reasons. FWIW, I'm currently on a Silver subscription and play "System Link" games with friends over VPN, which is more satisfying than linking up with J. Random Idiot any day of the week.

However, after years of dealing with internet communities (mostly forums, usenet, and IRC), I still stand by my assertion that any kind of community reputation system needs a persistent concept of identity, and forcing people to shell out currency for their identities is a great way to make it more persistent.

Well maybe more asshats can afford 360's than PS3s then because if we're simply gauging by the number of idiots you encounter, XBL has an order of magnitude more...

This follows directly from the fact that XBL has an order of magnitude (or higher) more users than its competition. The ratio of asshats to normal users may well be a lot less, though I don't have any real numbers to back that up.

I will say that I encounter far fewer griefers in XBL than I ever did on Battle.NET or GameSpy back in the day.

Good point Roth however my point was that most of the time, quality comes associated with a price.
I haven't tried PSN yet, so probably I should stop spouting unfounded hate and stupidity... But, I know I would stop paying if I didn't like xbox live anymore... I could always return to pc gaming.

Good point Roth however my point was that most of the time, quality comes associated with a price.
I haven't tried PSN yet, so probably I should stop spouting unfounded hate and stupidity...


http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/interweb_memes/stephen20colbert20steven20colbert.jpg

hahahaha you should lock the topic on that note.

http://i102.photobucket.com/albums/m95/rothbart_photos/interweb_memes/stephen20colbert20steven20colbert.jpg

I dunno now, should I feel offended now that I insulted myself? Or should I blame rothbart for agreeing with me while I insulted myself?

I dunno now, should I feel offended now that I insulted myself? Or should I blame rothbart for agreeing with me while I insulted myself?

I wasn't giving the thumbs up to the insult, I was giving the thumbs up that you typed the point I was trying to make... meaning you "got it". That's a thumbs up in my book!

Ha! Thank you then. =)

My 2p (I'm English);

Please don't see this as a personal attack or a piece of fanboyism or internet prickish-ness, but basically, I cannot see where you get your argument from.

The whole "fee = quality" idea is a fundamentally simple, and obvious theory.

Take ANY business of any kind as an example; money drives the WHOLE system.

Look at it from microsoft (a business whose goal is to make money)'s point of view;

-They make online service
-It is well-received by the consumer
-They can either:

-Plough resources into the development of this service in the hope to attract more customers and revenue.

OR

-Refuse to invest as much time/money into the service and potentially miss out on a number of consumers.


Now say they take the first option; to make this service sustainable as individual part of the company (forget Microsoft as a whole; as a business they shouldn't be aiming to pay for one department with another), they need to compensate for the resources they have invested into it's development.

Hence; a fee occurs.

You can apply this to anything from a major sports franchise to a lemonade stall.

In Sony's case, it would appear that they have either:

-Invested significant resources into PSN, and simply failed to make a comprehensively satisfactory (broadly anyway) service.

OR

-Taken the other option I laid out in the Microsoft example, and chosen to not develop their service as intensely as possible.

I bet if it had been Sony in Microsofts position, with the first service to market, (and a very good one at that), there would have been no hesitation to charge.

I honestly don't believe Sony is providing a free service because of some lame ethics that, "Online shouldn't be charged for". It's because they have no other way of competing with Xbox Live (and they don't).

The fact that PSN is free is just about saving PS3's skin in the online department in my view; rendering the faults (which are plentiful), almost acceptable to a lot of people.

PSN as a charged service at the same fee as XBL would suffer much more criticism than it currently does (in my opinion).


Also- just a side note. The way you commented on XBL being an established service that has "been around for YEARS", sounded very much like an excuse for PSN's faults.

Make no mistake, Playstation has also had YEARS to perfect it's own service, (perhaps not quite as long as Microsoft, but we're not talking a long time here) and have just failed to do so as successfully as Microsoft. Full stop.

Finally, you made a couple of comments regarding how PSN is a service that is being "ironed out" (I can't remember the exact terminology). This seems to be the ethos of the Playstation- "It'll be great when we've finished it".

As many people have said, I don't WANT to wait; especially not when Microsoft is doing it's own thing very well RIGHT NOW. (This isn't exactly an original argument, but it's a valid one nonetheless.)

Oh and for the record- I think $50 a year, (or £40 here in the UK!!!!) IS too much. Quite a lot too much. But Sony could bring that price down a shit-load if they had a decent service in contention with Live. As it is, what possible reason to Microsoft have to reduce their price?!


Anyway, rant-response over. Once again- please don't see this as a nastily-toned re-rant on yourself. This is the first time I've been to the site and I agree with a lot of your sentiments.

PS3 IS the best piece of console hardware for example. :)

The whole "fee = quality" idea is a fundamentally simple, and obvious theory.


No, that's why we're discussing here. Giving an example doesn't prove a correlation. That is fundamentally simple and obvious to some...

Now say they take the first option; to make this service sustainable as individual part of the company (forget Microsoft as a whole; as a business they shouldn't be aiming to pay for one department with another), they need to compensate for the resources they have invested into it's development.


You see that's an interesting supposition because (correct me if I'm wrong) when you take Microsoft's "gaming" unit, they've never profitted a dime, ever... they are the very definition of one department paying for another. Sony's the same way... there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

I honestly don't believe Sony is providing a free service because of some lame ethics that, "Online shouldn't be charged for". It's because they have no other way of competing with Xbox Live (and they don't).


Me neither. That's the card they're playing, but it's a tool against Microsoft, no doubt.

PSN as a charged service at the same fee as XBL would suffer much more criticism than it currently does (in my opinion).


Absolutely agreed, but I take issue with having to pay for either so that doesn't say as much from me as it would from you.


Also- just a side note. The way you commented on XBL being an established service that has "been around for YEARS", sounded very much like an excuse for PSN's faults.


No at all. Anybody that's had years at it would be more experienced and have already experienced (and overcome) growing pains. I've criticized Sony plenty for dragging their ass on it. I only offer the "years of experience" as one reason (and the biggest in my opinion) why XBL is so robust. I cost $50/year at launch yet wasn't nearly the system it is now. It's had several improvements since launch. People simply write off "$50/year" and the current state and equate the two. I could just as logically (ie. from a logic and proof state) claim George W. Bush being president had something to do with it... because XBL didn't become what it is today until he was president. You get where somebody could go with this? People are putting too much strength and validity into the fact that it costs and the fact that it's good. I could make similar statements ALL day that aren't necessarily related but may seem so on the surface... it doesn't change their relationship one bit when discussed though, only their perception. Nobody has convinced me that paying for a service is an answer to it being good.

Make no mistake, Playstation has also had YEARS to perfect it's own service, (perhaps not quite as long as Microsoft, but we're not talking a long time here) and have just failed to do so as successfully as Microsoft. Full stop.


I think they didn't even try with the PS2 and from what I've seen on the PS3, didn't put much pre-release work into PSN either... it's ENTIRELY their fault they're off to a VERY late start. I personally note the distinction between not starting until very late and starting a long time ago and sucking...

Finally, you made a couple of comments regarding how PSN is a service that is being "ironed out" (I can't remember the exact terminology). This seems to be the ethos of the Playstation- "It'll be great when we've finished it".


Just about everything from every system works this way... even the 360. Sure, they may start at differing levels of quality, but as long as progress is being made and things constantly get better, it's a valid approach. I think one of the biggest things Sony did that is dragging them down now that I think will pay off in the long run is to cram so much leading edge technology into the PS3. That's not fanboy talk, that's "looking at the timeframe the hardware will be relevant" talk... clearly Blu-ray was a gamble, clearly the Cell was a gamble, clearly the hardware is expensive... but Blu-ray has an extremely good chance of being successful, the Cell is an amazing processor that people are just starting to come to grips with (keep in mind IBM and Toshiba also felt very strongly that the Cell was a great idea), and the hardware reliability is second to none in terms of PS3's not failing... Microsoft is having a PR nightmare that they opted to fix only by extended a partial warranty.

Microsoft will probably be to market with their next machine before Sony, but Sony will be in the prime with the PS3 then and I just can't imagine at this point what that'll mean... just like I could never imagine a game like God of War 2 back with the PS2 launched...

As many people have said, I don't WANT to wait; especially not when Microsoft is doing it's own thing very well RIGHT NOW. (This isn't exactly an original argument, but it's a valid one nonetheless.)


Which is why a ton of people own 360's now (like me). Why wouldn't you? I mean their build quality is total crap, but the games available for it are second to none right now.

Oh and for the record- I think $50 a year, (or £40 here in the UK!!!!) IS too much. Quite a lot too much. But Sony could bring that price down a shit-load if they had a decent service in contention with Live. As it is, what possible reason to Microsoft have to reduce their price?!


Free online multiplayer. They can have a pay/premium/ultra/whatever service, but I think they need to be bullied by Sony into free online multiplayer... just like they're giving their PC customers.


Anyway, rant-response over. Once again- please don't see this as a nastily-toned re-rant on yourself. This is the first time I've been to the site and I agree with a lot of your sentiments.


I never do unless someone starts name calling, etc. I value input like this, always have. And I don't need to agree with people. A valid well thought out point is golden even if it isn't aligned with mine. From the rest of the crew here, welcome to SarcasticGamer!

PS3 IS the best piece of console hardware for example. :)


;) That right there is a good sign. Not a sign that you prefer the PS3 by any means, but the sign you're not blinded by platform loyalty. You'll do just fine here... :)

Firstly, sorry this reply has been on hold for a matter of months, :o I've just had a lot on the agenda recently.

Anyway, on with the reply!!!

Firstly, I tried (perhaps not fantastically enough) to explain why I do agree with the basic idea of cost = improved service.

Of course though, you are right in a way. It's ridiculous to suggest that "the more money goes in, the better the service is" as an open-ended and infinite scale.

There are also many other factors which combine to make the service what it is. The actual functionality and ideas contained in the service for example, have very little or no relevance to cost, and yet have a huge impact on the overall product.

On this issue though, I feel like we're debating something absolutely pointless. I think it's common knowledge that more money DOES or CAN give a much greater advantage in the creation of a service, over having a lack of funds. Everyone should surely agree on that one.

However it should also be obvious that money can only do so much, and more finance does not always equal better services.



You see that's an interesting supposition because (correct me if I'm wrong) when you take Microsoft's "gaming" unit, they've never profitted a dime, ever... they are the very definition of one department paying for another. Sony's the same way... there's absolutely nothing wrong with that

This one is interesting actually, as I believe Halo 3 actually pushed Microsoft's gaming division into profit recently, (correct ME if I'm wrong haha).

Of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with that if you look at it from a certain perspective, but at the end of the day, (as I am sure I don't need to point out to you) as far as business-sense goes, it's not a great tactic to set out to never make a dime from a particular division. Hence why I said they should not be aiming to do so.

No at all. Anybody that's had years at it would be more experienced and have already experienced (and overcome) growing pains. I've criticized Sony plenty for dragging their ass on it. I only offer the "years of experience" as one reason (and the biggest in my opinion) why XBL is so robust. I cost $50/year at launch yet wasn't nearly the system it is now. It's had several improvements since launch. People simply write off "$50/year" and the current state and equate the two. I could just as logically (ie. from a logic and proof state) claim George W. Bush being president had something to do with it... because XBL didn't become what it is today until he was president. You get where somebody could go with this? People are putting too much strength and validity into the fact that it costs and the fact that it's good. I could make similar statements ALL day that aren't necessarily related but may seem so on the surface... it doesn't change their relationship one bit when discussed though, only their perception. Nobody has convinced me that paying for a service is an answer to it being good.

Absolutely. Not sure if I have made this particularly clear before, but I do not defend Microsoft charging as much as they do, and I most definitely do not believe that all that 50$ fee has a direct correlation to a better Live service (not to say that the 50$ fee COULDN'T have a direct correlation).

Just about everything from every system works this way... even the 360. Sure, they may start at differing levels of quality, but as long as progress is being made and things constantly get better, it's a valid approach. I think one of the biggest things Sony did that is dragging them down now that I think will pay off in the long run is to cram so much leading edge technology into the PS3. That's not fanboy talk, that's "looking at the timeframe the hardware will be relevant" talk... clearly Blu-ray was a gamble, clearly the Cell was a gamble, clearly the hardware is expensive... but Blu-ray has an extremely good chance of being successful, the Cell is an amazing processor that people are just starting to come to grips with (keep in mind IBM and Toshiba also felt very strongly that the Cell was a great idea), and the hardware reliability is second to none in terms of PS3's not failing... Microsoft is having a PR nightmare that they opted to fix only by extended a partial warranty.


Sure, I agree, everything improves as time goes on, and as you say, products start at varying degrees. It's also arguable that Sony will indeed win the war of longevity and improve drastically in the future. However, whether Sony's association with starting off very slowly and taking considerable time to improve is beneficial or indeed even acceptable from the point of the consumer, is another matter entirely (and one that I won't get in to).


And finally:

They can have a pay/premium/ultra/whatever service, but I think they need to be bullied by Sony into free online multiplayer... just like they're giving their PC customers.

Yup, that's exactly what I was getting at.

Hopefully won't be such a long wait for my next post! :)

Oh and also, just a hypothetical question here.

Rothbart, what would your reaction be if it turned out that the 50$ fee WAS in fact all into maintenance/the general running and upholding of the service?

Just curious.

Well, keep in mind that this rant was written well before Halo 3 coming out and the "profit" announcement being made. But frankly the fact that a giant hullabaloo wasn't made over this, I'm suspecting something more will come of this later (like the software branch profited but they still lost $50M due to hardware or something). Also, I think it's pretty clear that Halo 3's sales haven't recouped the $1.15BILLION loss they took for the RRoD disaster. To that end, I'd still question whether from the start they've "actually" profitted or not.

Also, I don't mind rehashing this again. What exactly is the monthly fee going towards? People seem quick to point out bandwidth and servers, yet if you do a quick survey of the top gaming news sites it's primarily the 360 games that seem to suffer from lag, and the TruSkill matchmaking is a joke... also, games like Warhawk and Resistance tend to offer larger scale multiplayer than Live games do on the whole...

I guess I personally don't see the justification for paying for Gold other than the fact that they're holding online multiplayer hostage.

Rothbart, what would your reaction be if it turned out that the 50$ fee WAS in fact all into maintenance/the general running and upholding of the service?

I would say their days are numbered before they need to eat that fee for lack of looking like cheapskates compared to their competition. It's not like they're not afraid to take losses elsewhere.

I honestly feel like the fee is "free money" to them. They were the first to do it and set the precedent.

Thank yourself lucky you don't live in "Rip off Britain", Xbox live gold accounts are £35 here, which is about $73 :eek:

Yeah I'm sure there is more behind the figures than just "Halo 3 = Xbox profit".

And to be perfectly honest, I have NO idea what the Live fee goes to. I would make up a load of stuff about how it's servers and staffing or blah blah blah but the fact of the matter is I simply don't know... and neither does the vast majority of everyone else who comments on the subject.

Hence why I was trying to get more at the principle behind the matter as opposed to solely the Live example itself.

Anyway, in all likelihood it probably IS Microsoft making easy money. But it's simply not gonna change in todays society where people are so easily shepherded.

Look on the bright side, if everyone had the commercial savvy to recognise an injustice and act on it, there would be VERY little inspiration left for rants and debates like this one. :)


oh and to the other guy- us brits get the raw end of the deal to a LAUGHABLE degree. Rothbart you should see our Live marketplace- it really is a joke compared to what I've seen of the US equivalent.

this also brings back up the "PC gaming is dying" idea. Pay for online? not unless you're playing an MMORPG. PC online play has never been equaled by any console and they are not even coming close to equaling it now, and microsoft seems to be stepping in the wrong direction to make people pay for it. XBL wasn't what it is now a year ago, so people who think the PSN will be the same in a year are hopeless, blindfolded suckers.

but either way, the PC still comes out way on top, which, i guess is good for microsoft... damn.

Rothbart you should see our Live marketplace- it really is a joke compared to what I've seen of the US equivalent.

I rarely buy anything there anyway... I've got a bunch-o-points sitting in my account but not much catches my eye. I'm not buying/renting TV shows or movies on the thing... and very few XBLA games seem worth my money to me. I might check out Word Puzzle (or whatever it's called) tomorrow as my family might like that.

Despite how much I don't like the PS3's current position in the console wars, you have a very strong point. In fact, if the PS3 wasn't so pricey and if it had more kick-ass games, I would've gotten the PS3 and be on it more than I would be on Xbox Live.

And although I don't like the fact that Microsoft is CHARGING us to play games online, there's nothing that we can do about it. So many people have already bought Xbox Live subscriptions that I doubt that Microsoft will make online gaming free anytime soon.

Microsoft has done a great job in creating demand for something that really should be free. Unfortunately there is nothing that can be done to force Microsoft to stop charging other than Sony offering the same thing for free. Too bad Sony has done nothing to really challenge Microsoft.

When I just owned the PS2, I always thought it was crazy to pay for online gaming with the Xbox. But then PS2 really never did anything with its online gaming to create some type of community. With Xbox I could play someone on Madden and if it was a good friendly game, it made it easy to synch up with them at a later date and play again. I could meet up with some friends that I had never met and play some great games while talking about other things.

And when you break it down, its only $4 a month to get all these added features. Hell, Sony forces you to pay an extra $200 to play HD movies on their console.

Hell, Sony forces you to pay an extra $200 to play HD movies on their console.

*sigh*

*sigh*

I knew you'd love that line.:D

I knew you'd love that line.:D

I debated whether to pull out the "Microsoft forces you to turn up the volume to hear games over their SUPER-ASSED LOUD DRIVES that don't always read much-more-prone-to-scratching DVDs and make you swap discs for larger games, increasing the probability that one of the discs will get damaged and ruin your gaming experience" line.

But then I thought, naw, that'd be sinking down to his level...

*runs*

As a PC gamer this stuff has started to be a huge irritation. The new Games For Windows lineup uses XBL for multi play. Which sucks. Especially for the RTS world. Why the hell am I paying for the right to play ranked matches? And a whole host of other stuff that that has been free for more than ten years? They may have console gamers fooled, but I'm not buying it

As a PC gamer this stuff has started to be a huge irritation. The new Games For Windows lineup uses XBL for multi play. Which sucks. Especially for the RTS world. Why the hell am I paying for the right to play ranked matches? And a whole host of other stuff that that has been free for more than ten years? They may have console gamers fooled, but I'm not buying it

Too bloody right!

As far as i'm concerned, when it comes to PC gaming It should be free, it always has been. I don't buy any of the "running" cost nonsense, you only have to look at Steam, and its implementation to see how a great system can be provided for free, and with the latest community updates to it, it just as good as the LIVE crap....;)