Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Is the Live Gold Standard Slowly Fading?

Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
edited June 2009 in Games and Technology
It seems to me like every year Microsoft announces new and surprising offerings to Live. With the announcement and implimentation of the various new offering from Live, such as 1 vs 100, Netflix, Last.fm, Facebook, and Twitter, Live is becoming a giant internet hub. And most, if not all of these features require one thing, a gold subscription.

And this got me thinking. Could it be that Microsoft has realized that online play alone isn't enough to draw people to buy a gold membership? That they're adding these features to not just add value, but possibly restructure the way Live works?

Does it seem possible that Microsoft is actually gearing up to drop online multiplayer from being a Gold only affair, and make it so this added content is what you pay for? And if so, does it seem like it will work?

In my opinion, not yet. There's still several things missing from a Gold membership that wouldn't make up for Online multiplayer. As long as live doesn't let you do things like Check your E-mail, order food online, watch Hulu (or TED), it's not making up for the lack of Online Multiplayer. But they're getting damned close. What do you guys think?

Death of Rats on
«134

Posts

  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Even though this is my dream I'd imagine that thousands of people would drop Gold like a bad habit if multiplayer became free.

    Maybe even millions.

    Also, another semi related nitpick.

    2005 Explaination Why 360 Doesn't Have an Internet Browser - The focus of the system is games and gaming.

    2009 Explaination Why 360 Doesn't Have an Internet Browser but has just About Everything Else One Would Normally Use a PC For - Umm, err, look the other way! (Working on 360 Office for Next E3)

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I wouldn't say so, I think doing something like that, unless between console generations, would risk upsetting a large portion of their users. What it does appear they're doing, however, is adding value to a Gold subscription in a way that won't anger paying subscribers. You don't just get the multiplayer you were paying for, you get other features and abilities bundled in. It's a bigger draw for Silver members to upgrade.

  • Radikal_DreamerRadikal_Dreamer Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Online multiplayer isn't enough to keep people paying you for something they shouldn't? Well, let's just add a bunch of other things people can do for free on their computer, PS3, or Wii, and then maybe they'll pay? Yeah, great thinking Microsoft...

    theincidentsig.jpg
  • ZiggymonZiggymon Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    If they dropped Online multiplayer from the Gold membership, Microsoft would need something pretty big to offer the Gold members from dropping the service like a bad habit.

    Personally I think something like Gold members have all DLC at half price would be a pretty big incentive.

    I have REZ for the Dreamcast PAL for sale £35. Other Excellent retro games for sale PM for details
  • Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Please don't turn this into a stupid "live isn't worth the money" bullshit thread.

    Other than that, yes, I see this as a ramping up to a change once the next console comes out. At the moment people are paying for live gold because of the multiplayer. But people are getting used to things like Netflix or Last.fm or games like 1 vs 100 live or that kart racer. If these things stick around next gen, and are added too, I don't think multiplayer would be necessary to draw a lot of the same people back into paying.

  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    It seems to me like every year Microsoft announces new and surprising offerings to Live. With the announcement and implimentation of the various new offering from Live, such as 1 vs 100, Netflix, Last.fm, Facebook, and Twitter, Live is becoming a giant internet hub. And most, if not all of these features require one thing, a gold subscription.

    And this got me thinking. Could it be that Microsoft has realized that online play alone isn't enough to draw people to buy a gold membership? That they're adding these features to not just add value, but possibly restructure the way Live works?

    Does it seem possible that Microsoft is actually gearing up to drop online multiplayer from being a Gold only affair, and make it so this added content is what you pay for? And if so, does it seem like it will work?

    In my opinion, not yet. There's still several things missing from a Gold membership that wouldn't make up for Online multiplayer. As long as live doesn't let you do things like Check your E-mail, order food online, watch Hulu (or TED), it's not making up for the lack of Online Multiplayer. But they're getting damned close. What do you guys think?

    Gates himself has said that his intention wasn't to create an operating system or a home console. His intention is to have the Microsoft footprint in every electronic device in your home. That's why they are moving towards all of this and away from gaming. That's also why they lost so much money on the original Xbox and didn't care. It was never and has never been about the games. It is about market share in the home living room/kitchen/bathroom(!?). There was a good interview a while back, but I can't remember the damn magazine. Maybe popular science? In short - yes, I think gaming is very secondary to their intentions. Sony is doing the same thing with their CES, but ultimately behind the curve.

  • Xenogears of BoreXenogears of Bore Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I used to think the exact same way Rats but then I realized that without serious competition in the online scene that there is no reason to not charge for multiplayer.

    Having one ad supported and one free probably wouldn't work as the 360 is already filled with ads even for gold members. I can't think of any grouping of features that could replace online multiplayer that would get the same amount of people or more to sign up for Gold.

    Well, something like the reduced price DLC which would cost them millions in lost revenue might but that's pretty silly.

    3DS CODE: 3093-7068-3576
  • mugginnsmugginns Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    And this got me thinking. Could it be that Microsoft has realized that online play alone isn't enough to draw people to buy a gold membership? That they're adding these features to not just add value, but possibly restructure the way Live works?
    I don't really think so. They're still going strong with people subscribed and they're just adding this stuff so they can branch out.

    E26cO.jpg
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Time was when all a Gold account meant (other than multi) was getting demos a week earlier.

    I'll never pay for multi (I'm sorry, but I cut my teeth on PC games and that dog just won't hunt with me), so if they offered it for free I'd be reasonably happy. The Netflix and social networking stuff can also die in a fire for all I care, to be honest, but at least it makes more sense to me as a way to add value to a Gold account then charging for connecting me to another 360.

    I'd be interested to know how many people would drop the Gold account if they could play multi with a Silver, but I can guess that MS's usage statistics already gives them a pretty solid idea - and since they don't seem to be desperate for new subscribers, I don't think anything is changing this generation.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • MayGodHaveMercyMayGodHaveMercy Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I'd be interested to know how many people would drop the Gold account if they could play multi with a Silver

    I would, in a split second. All the other shit, as had been said before, I can do on my PC. But the price is fine for the ability to play Halo with my friends.

    ArcherEyes2.jpg
    XBL: Mercy XXVI - Steam: Mercy_XXVI
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I dunno. I'd probably still pay for Live if it only had Netflix support. Being able to watch a movie on my TV like that is worth the money.

    But seriously with either service you get stuck with loud, obnoxious fucks in some games. I hate playing Left4Dead on the 360 because people are fucking stupid.

    Then I played Resistance 2 online and found the same people. Ugh... PC gaming is really the only place to get semi-competent people.

    Games completed recently: Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dead Island: Riptide, Batman: Arkham Origins, StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I went Gold for Online Multiplayer. However, even if Multiplayer went free, I'd keep the Gold for Netflix Streaming. Totally worth it.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • mugginnsmugginns Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    I dunno. I'd probably still pay for Live if it only had Netflix support. Being able to watch a movie on my TV like that is worth the money.

    But seriously with either service you get stuck with loud, obnoxious fucks in some games. I hate playing Left4Dead on the 360 because people are fucking stupid.

    Then I played Resistance 2 online and found the same people. Ugh... PC gaming is really the only place to get semi-competent people.
    It is still the same population. Go play WoW or CS and tell me there aren't ignorant 14 year olds streaming yakety sax or yelling racial slurs. The difference is less people own a mic on PC. (hell, go to barrens chat!)

    It really isn't hard to not play with stupid pubs, though. Find a community (such as PA or 360A) and group up. If the party option wasn't available in Silver i would pay for gold. We can play Halo 3 against pubs and never, ever hear a stupid ignorant word from a stupid ignorant pub.

    E26cO.jpg
  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    urahonky wrote: »
    Ugh... PC gaming is really the only place to get semi-competent people.

    Incorrect. Gaming Exclusively with Arcadians is really the only way to get semi-competent people, regardless of platform. PC Gamers are aren't quite as bad on average as the 360 crowd, but it seems every second public TF2 server I try is attempting to emulate 4chan. Badly.

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • BlackDragon480BlackDragon480 Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Maybe it's because I never really got into online multiplayer till the consoles had it (I've been gaming since roughly 1985, but never online till around 2003), but I don't see what the big deal is about paying a whole 13.7 cents a day (if you do the yearly subscription) for multiplayer plus all the extras MS has piled on.

    steam_sig.png
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Ugh... PC gaming is really the only place to get semi-competent people.

    Incorrect. Gaming Exclusively with Arcadians is really the only way to get semi-competent people, regardless of platform. PC Gamers are aren't quite as bad on average as the 360 crowd, but it seems every second public TF2 server I try is attempting to emulate 4chan. Badly.

    Back when COD4 was at its height the PA games were something incredible.

    And I own (though several twists of fate) all versions of COD4 and the console crowd are the best.

    Then again, I consider my Gold subscription to be a COD4 monthly bill, like an MMO or something.

    I figure most people see it that way. You find your 'one game' and stick with it and the price makes it worthwhiole.

    scarab you have mental problems
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Am I the only one who hates the browsers on consoles?

    I once tried using Opera on my PS3, even with a keyboard. Pain in the ass.

    The Wii was not much better. I don't imagine a Microsoft counterpart being a big improvement (though at least their in-house browser has the widest support...).

    Though seriously, it's quite entertaining to see Xenogears proposing another grassroots plan to show Microsoft what's what. "Fellow gamers, unite! You have nothing to loose but your planned weekend matches! And maybe your accounts as a whole!"

    The power of the masses won't be denied!

    Not that there's anything wrong with it! I'm a big fan of revolutions from the bottom, I just think it's pretty funny!

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • Radikal_DreamerRadikal_Dreamer Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Maybe it's because I never really got into online multiplayer till the consoles had it (I've been gaming since roughly 1985, but never online till around 2003), but I don't see what the big deal is about paying a whole 13.7 cents a day (if you do the yearly subscription) for multiplayer plus all the extras MS has piled on.

    The "big deal" is that online multiplayer has been free for a long time. The only thing you paid for previous to Microsoft's system was for something like an MMO, and there you get dedicated servers. Microsoft's system has you paying for not even that. You can play games online on your PS3, PC, and Wii all for free. No matter how cheap it is per day it's still more than 0 per day, thus making it a fucking ridiculous fee. A lot of the extras they're tacking on now are equally as laughable, as I can do twitter, last.fm, facebook, etc on the PC, PS3, and Wii, again, all for the cost of 0 per day.

    Personally, I buy my multiplayer games for either PC or PS3. I wasn't satisfied with what I played on live gold during my free month, and so I've never paid for it, and I doubt I will for a long time. The only thing that is getting me even close to it is Netflix, and I still think it's kind of silly that I have to have gold to do it. Personally, I'm holding out to see if it comes to PS3 anytime soon.

    theincidentsig.jpg
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Maybe it's because I never really got into online multiplayer till the consoles had it (I've been gaming since roughly 1985, but never online till around 2003), but I don't see what the big deal is about paying a whole 13.7 cents a day (if you do the yearly subscription) for multiplayer plus all the extras MS has piled on.

    Yeah, I suppose that, if like Scarab said, I was part of a community I could be convinced to drop some money. On the other hand I used to give my friends endless shit for paying for WoW, even though when you're at a high level and in a guild it becomes something very clost to an actual job.

    As for price of XBL, it does come out rather cheap. But even at $4 a month, that's $50 a year that I could spend right now on Steam and buy over 10 great games, some with built in free multiplayer.

    I've given up arguing the actual economics of it since it really is a matter of opinion and I don't begrudge you your enjoyment, but just know that breaking up the price of something like that is something that life insurance commercials do, and I can just as easily say it costs $250 over the life of the console for a different effect.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Ugh... PC gaming is really the only place to get semi-competent people.

    Incorrect. Gaming Exclusively with Arcadians is really the only way to get semi-competent people, regardless of platform. PC Gamers are aren't quite as bad on average as the 360 crowd, but it seems every second public TF2 server I try is attempting to emulate 4chan. Badly.

    See I played a lot of Left4Dead with pubbies on PC, and it wasn't NEARLY as bad as it is on the 360. But I never really play TF2 on a public server, so maybe that crowd is still there. :P
    mugginns wrote:
    stuff

    True, but it's much easier to ignore what people TYPE than it is to ignore what people SAY. Plus their high pitched squeaky voices just makes me want to punch a uterus.

    Games completed recently: Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dead Island: Riptide, Batman: Arkham Origins, StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty
  • FoodFood Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I like playing with pubbies, but then I'm usually playing online just to mess around and grief people for my own amusement. If you're playing with people on PA you will get kicked for playing an entire round of COD4 prone.

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Now, if only there was some sort of system to....stop the sound coming from people....specific people....an option to mute them if you will.....

    Seriously, no one's stopping you. I do it all the time.

    Now, more PC games need options to ignore other people's words.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • darkgruedarkgrue Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I have a suspicion that if Live multiplayer was free, it wouldn't be worth playing.

    As a subsciption service, multiplayer is a revenue stream and they're motiviated (as well as obligated) to provide the service as advertised (modulo a bunch of disclaimers). They are incentivized to work on solutions to cheating, resolve complains, etc. As soon as that goes free, all the above and more go to the bottom of the priorities list.

    Live isn't perfect, but it seems to be far and away better than the free multiplayer that was "bundled" with other games in terms of availability and quality.

  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    I just turn off voice altogether. I'll turn it on if I know exactly who I am playing with.

    Otherwise? Fuck you, you can take the time to type it out if you want to tell me about turning my asshole into a playground.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    Now, if only there was some sort of system to....stop the sound coming from people....specific people....an option to mute them if you will.....

    Seriously, no one's stopping you. I do it all the time.

    Now, more PC games need options to ignore other people's words.

    It's the first thing I do when I get into a server. But it's a little ridiculous that I have to spend the time to mute every single person before I even get into the game.

    Plus on a game like Left4Dead you NEED to communicate with your teammates. If every single person on there is a douche nozzle then how the fuck are you supposed to finish the game?

    Games completed recently: Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dead Island: Riptide, Batman: Arkham Origins, StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    darkgrue wrote: »
    I have a suspicion that if Live multiplayer was free, it wouldn't be worth playing.

    As a subsciption service, multiplayer is a revenue stream and they're motiviated (as well as obligated) to provide the service as advertised (modulo a bunch of disclaimers). They are incentivized to work on solutions to cheating, resolve complains, etc. As soon as that goes free, all the above and more go to the bottom of the priorities list.

    Live isn't perfect, but it seems to be far and away better than the free multiplayer that was "bundled" with other games in terms of availability and quality.

    Part of that has to do with the fact that Microsoft presented the first unified online structure on a console (which everyone else promptly emulated, sometimes after saying they wouldn't).

    It was extremely novel at the time (this was before the notion of Gold and Silver subscriptions). When MechAssault became the first Xbox Live game, I jumped on it, including the monthly fee, despite being considerably more impoverished.

    Of course, the same case could be made that the fee is a holdover to an earlier, simpler time long since past, but I don't mind in any case. When World of Warcraft costs $15 a month (without a card), for one game, at least to me, the Xbox Live fee seems a not more reasonable.

    (Frankly, I wish I had kept doing it on a monthly basis--due to a hangup with my credit card which I had closed for security purposes, I ended up paying for two months in advance along with the fee of a card myself. Stupid, stupid, stupid....)

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.

    So many.

    It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.

  • HounHoun Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Man.

    Some of you seem to have this idea that things should be free. If I've learned anything in my time as an "adult" (and I use that word with a touch of irony, yes), it's that NOTHING is free, unless it's useless, or they haven't figured out how to properly charge for it yet. That's just capitalism. Get used to it.

    That said, it naturally follows that everything is a product. If you don't feel the price of the product is worth it, then don't pay it. :P

    Steam: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | NNID: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Man.

    Some of you seem to have this idea that things should be free. If I've learned anything in my time as an "adult" (and I use that word with a touch of irony, yes), it's that NOTHING is free, unless it's useless, or they haven't figured out how to properly charge for it yet. That's just capitalism. Get used to it.

    That said, it naturally follows that everything is a product. If you don't feel the price of the product is worth it, then don't pay it. :P

    Fair enough - but CoD4 cost $10 less new on PC than on the 360, and included free multiplayer.

    Nothing may be free, but costs are always relative. That's just capitalism.

    Edit: I'm actually not trying to be argumentative here. I don't think people who pay for Live are stupid, I just never will do so myself. The real question isn't whether MS is justified to charge (because arguments appealing to capitalism will inevitably tell you they are so long as people are buying it), it's whether MS has any compelling reason to offer multiplayer for free now or in the future.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    kedinik wrote: »
    There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.

    So many.

    It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.

    While that is a tragedy, it's mostly a tragedy for you. Seriously, I'm not saying they're geniuses, but I'm pretty should Microsoft has already weighed the costs versus benefits on the subject several time.

    God knows they already got my money. And the money of several of my friends.

    Which is not to say I'm not sympathetic....but it's a problem for gamers far more than for MS.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • mugginnsmugginns Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    The "big deal" is that online multiplayer has been free for a long time. The only thing you paid for previous to Microsoft's system was for something like an MMO, and there you get dedicated servers. Microsoft's system has you paying for not even that. You can play games online on your PS3, PC, and Wii all for free. No matter how cheap it is per day it's still more than 0 per day, thus making it a fucking ridiculous fee.
    Not when the quality of the product is much, much better. Not having to type in friend codes and having xbox.com to do things is worth it alone.

    E26cO.jpg
  • urahonkyurahonky Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Also FUCK the cheaters on COD4 for the PC.

    Games completed recently: Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Dead Island: Riptide, Batman: Arkham Origins, StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    I pay for Live. It's worth the money. If you buy a 13 month card it works out to like what.. 4$ a month?

    I don't have a problem with Wii's online either. You get what you pay for.

    Also, you are still using Microsoft's servers. Unless your Xbox can magically find other players all by itself without a central server.

    The only reason PC gaming is 'free' is because you're piggybacking off the clans that pay money to rent servers for you....

  • APZonerunnerAPZonerunner Registered User
    edited June 2009
    I went gold for gaming and I felt it wasn't the greatest value for money at the time. All the new features added now are making me feel much, much better about the price I'm paying. I'd now say it's absolutely worth it.

    APZonerunner | RPG Site | UFFSite | The Gaming Vault
    XBL/PSN/Steam: APZonerunner
  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    I pay for Live. It's worth the money. If you buy a 13 month card it works out to like what.. 4$ a month?

    I don't have a problem with Wii's online either. You get what you pay for.

    Also, you are still using Microsoft's servers. Unless your Xbox can magically find other players all by itself without a central server.

    The only reason PC gaming is 'free' is because you're piggybacking off the clans that pay money to rent servers for you....

    Or, you know, you host your own game on your own line and invite some friends in. Like 99% of every game on Live.

    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • ArcticMonkeyArcticMonkey Registered User
    edited June 2009
    Houn wrote: »
    Man.

    Some of you seem to have this idea that things should be free. If I've learned anything in my time as an "adult" (and I use that word with a touch of irony, yes), it's that NOTHING is free, unless it's useless, or they haven't figured out how to properly charge for it yet. That's just capitalism. Get used to it.

    That said, it naturally follows that everything is a product. If you don't feel the price of the product is worth it, then don't pay it. :P
    While I don't expect something for nothing, the psychological barrier is pretty large when I feel I would be paying for nothing.
    When I played World of Warcraft I had no problem paying for continued development, servers and in game support and I was reasonable happy with the product I got.
    When I bought L4D/TF2 and must connect to Steam to play on non-Valve servers, that to me is their anti piracy system with added benefits. And while I like it, I would feel strongly against paying a monthly fee for it.
    Having a server finding me a game should be included in the price of the game, like everyone who is in the online game business except Microsoft treats it.

    Microsoft should of course keep charging as long as it makes sense for them, but for me the whole Xbox Live Gold thing was a major reason why I bought a PS3 instead of a 360.

    "You read it! You can't unread it!"
    venstre.giflobotDanceMiddle.gifhoyre.gif
  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    FyreWulff wrote: »
    I pay for Live. It's worth the money. If you buy a 13 month card it works out to like what.. 4$ a month?

    I don't have a problem with Wii's online either. You get what you pay for.

    Also, you are still using Microsoft's servers. Unless your Xbox can magically find other players all by itself without a central server.

    The only reason PC gaming is 'free' is because you're piggybacking off the clans that pay money to rent servers for you....

    Or, you know, you host your own game on your own line and invite some friends in. Like 99% of every game on Live.

    Yeah, except you can hardly ever get PC gamers to play on listen servers.

    I mean, I'll use Halo 2 as an example:

    start game, custom game, press a: you and your buddies are playing
    start game, matchmaking playlist, press a: you are playing a game within 20 seconds where the 12 year old host can't kick you for playing well, and you play a random map which means you just aren't playing Midship 24/7..

    halo2 pc:
    start game, server list.. look for one that isn't passworded..

    okay, now look for one that isn't Foundation Snipers..

    okay, now look for one that isn't a modded map...

    hrm, okay, i thin- no, that's a Midship 24/7 server..

    I found one! wait shit, there's only 2 guys on there.

    How about this FFA one! Cool. Oh wait, I just got kicked for having a killing spree.

  • kedinikkedinik Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    Synthesis wrote: »
    kedinik wrote: »
    There are so many awesome 360 games that I will never buy because they require Gold for online play.

    So many.

    It's a self-defeating barrier to consumer entry.

    While that is a tragedy, it's mostly a tragedy for you. Seriously, I'm not saying they're geniuses, but I'm pretty should Microsoft has already weighed the costs versus benefits on the subject several time.

    God knows they already got my money. And the money of several of my friends.

    Which is not to say I'm not sympathetic....but it's a problem for gamers far more than for MS.

    Eh.

    It's Microsoft's problem, not mine.

    Charging a substantial monthly fee for the temporary right to play multiplayer is a great way to lose lots of sales.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited June 2009
    System Link is free.

  • JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited June 2009
    If you have a Netflix account, Live is already a solid buy without the online multi. An unlimited Netflix account with one out at a time is $9; two out is something like $13 or $14. Spend that on a live membership, at $3 a month, gets you a very similar benefit (no downtime while waiting for another movie) plus all the other Gold membership perks. I've had a Gold membership since I bought my 360 for this and haven't played online yet.

    Tired of getting reamed by Gamestop? Sign up for Goozex!
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.