I know that people keep referring to other entertainment mediums and items that have increased in cost as a comparison, but for those of us on smaller budgets, it just means that we don't spend money on them.
I haven't paid for a movie ticket in over 2 years. I'm not paying $10.50 ($21 if I go with my wife) to see a two hour movie. I have gone to the movies (maybe 5 times in the past 2 years) when prompted by others, and they have purchased my ticket because they wanted to go.
I haven't bought a DVD in over a year unless it was in the $5 bargain bin or less. I don't have a Blu-ray player because there's no way I'm buying movies at those prices either. Also, no HDTV so it'd be worthless anyway.
I've been mooching off my father-in-law's Netflix account to watch movies via instant streaming, and I switched to Satellite TV to drop my costs per month about $25-30 vs cable, though since there's no options BUT cable (well, dial-up, but we're talking realistic options here) for internet, I'm stuck with that.
Soda is $4 a 12 pack. Guess what, I don't buy it at that price. I buy soda when it's $2.50 a 12 pack or less, and even then it depends on what my finances look like. Water from the tap is cheap.
I purchase maybe 4 games a year. I got my 360 last year when WalMart had Arcades for $100. I got Live for $40 because I was playing Borderlands regularly with a friend, but that will expire this November. I haven't played an online game in months, and have been mooching off my father-in-laws Netflix account on my 360. It's my only reason to have Gold right now.
Sure, I can renew at $40, and sure, $10 more isn't breaking my bank, but it's significant enough that I seriously compare getting another game a year or playing online. At this point, I'd rather get another game for the DS/Wii/360 than pay for Live. If my friends want to play online I'll find some free trial cards or something to play for however long it takes us to play through the game and move on.
I'm not saying it's not MS' right to make money, but it's a stupid move during the current economic climate when other viable alternatives exist and there really isn't anything added by Gold that hasn't already been available or is locked away until you subscribe to it as well. 1 v 100 was fun, I don't know why they cancelled it, but stuff like that is the real value behind having gold. They need to add more things like that if they want to entice more customers into paying for gold. Especially me.
tl:dr - I'd rather buy another game a year than pay for Live - it's not for me I guess.
Facebook: Free on PC, adds nothing to the value of the system
Twitter: The same
last.FM: once again.....
Netflix: people already pay for it but is actually good....
What frustrates me is that, other than Netflix, those things are pretty half-assed. Actual integration into the system (such as custom tracks while gaming with last.FM) would've changed them from "it's ok since I'm already pay for them" to an actual incentive.
I know that people keep referring to other entertainment mediums and items that have increased in cost as a comparison, but for those of us on smaller budgets, it just means that we don't spend money on them.
I haven't paid for a movie ticket in over 2 years. I'm not paying $10.50 ($21 if I go with my wife) to see a two hour movie. I have gone to the movies (maybe 5 times in the past 2 years) when prompted by others, and they have purchased my ticket because they wanted to go.
I haven't bought a DVD in over a year unless it was in the $5 bargain bin or less. I don't have a Blu-ray player because there's no way I'm buying movies at those prices either. Also, no HDTV so it'd be worthless anyway.
I've been mooching off my father-in-law's Netflix account to watch movies via instant streaming, and I switched to Satellite TV to drop my costs per month about $25-30 vs cable, though since there's no options BUT cable (well, dial-up, but we're talking realistic options here) for internet, I'm stuck with that.
Soda is $4 a 12 pack. Guess what, I don't buy it at that price. I buy soda when it's $2.50 a 12 pack or less, and even then it depends on what my finances look like. Water from the tap is cheap.
I purchase maybe 4 games a year. I got my 360 last year when WalMart had Arcades for $100. I got Live for $40 because I was playing Borderlands regularly with a friend, but that will expire this November. I haven't played an online game in months, and have been mooching off my father-in-laws Netflix account on my 360. It's my only reason to have Gold right now.
Sure, I can renew at $40, and sure, $10 more isn't breaking my bank, but it's significant enough that I seriously compare getting another game a year or playing online. At this point, I'd rather get another game for the DS/Wii/360 than pay for Live. If my friends want to play online I'll find some free trial cards or something to play for however long it takes us to play through the game and move on.
I'm not saying it's not MS' right to make money, but it's a stupid move during the current economic climate when other viable alternatives exist and there really isn't anything added by Gold that hasn't already been available or is locked away until you subscribe to it as well. 1 v 100 was fun, I don't know why they cancelled it, but stuff like that is the real value behind having gold. They need to add more things like that if they want to entice more customers into paying for gold. Especially me.
tl:dr - I'd rather buy another game a year than pay for Live - it's not for me I guess.
This doesn't sound like you're on a smaller budget, this sounds like you're a cheap ass.
5 bucks a month, big deal. I'm 35, if 5 bucks a month gets me bent out of shape, I fucked up somewhere along the way.
It's not that fact that it's $60 year
It's that NOONE else charges people anything for similar and arguably equal systems
It doesn't sound like the price was increased due to inflation. I just want to know what the purpose of it is. $10 additional each year isn't anything to me really, but come on, I've been paying $50 a year for what amounts to peer-to-peer online games, which is shit I've been doing for free on the PC for a very, very long time. Considering the only games I play on the 360 online are fighters, and most tournaments use the PS3 versions anyhow, I might as well just drop Gold, buy arcade sticks for the PS3, and make that my main system.
Forces developers to pay for DLC space and hence the customers have to pay
Plasters adverts on the dashboard
Making the developers pay for servers or just have the player host
Offer services that are free and 10,000% better on the PC
Offer services that are good but you have to pay the respective company personally aswell as M$
Charges for FUCKING multi player when nobody else does
They should lower the price not raising it the fucking scamming dick shits
The thread title should really be "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T PAY FOR IT". Because that would cover probably 95% of the gripes in here. Folks really need to reconcile the fact that Microsoft charges for Live is because they can profit from it.
This doesn't work for most PC games because most of them don't know how to convince people to pay for that stuff. But for the few games where people do pay to play, they charge 2-3 times the cost of Live for playing a single game. And as always, it needs to be pointed out that even with PC games, somebody always has to cover the costs whether they be the publishers or the people who rent/own game servers.
Sony doesn't charge for PSN because they flat-out don't think they can convince people to pay for it and make a profit from it. They are not kind or generous, merely trying to spin something they suck at as a feature. Once they can get their network together, you can bet something like Live will show up for Playstation products.
Nintendo doesn't charge for online access because they barely have an online plan at all. But they don't even need the online service to be good and profitable because they rake in the cash by selling tons of Wiis and DS's and first-party games.
You can hate it all you want, but Microsoft is simply the first to get where everyone else is going. You can hate the price hike all you want, but it still just barely beats out inflation and Microsoft has every last little right to charge what they want for a completely optional service on a completely optional machine. Folks, gaming is a luxury, not a right. We are not entitled to be given what we want, we are only entitled to purchase what we enjoy. The only effective vote here is to simply vote with your wallet.
And that is why this is a lame thread. Most of the discussion isn't about the $.50 a month price hike, it's about the xbox live service in general. So you get people who are way too emotional about a service they don't even use posting along side people that use the service, like it, and don't care about a small change in price.
And that is why this is a lame thread. Most of the discussion isn't about the $.50 a month price hike, it's about the xbox live service in general. So you get people who are way too emotional about a service they don't even use posting along side people that use the service, like it, and don't care about a small change in price.
"Emotional" isn't even a strong enough word. It's ten fucking dollars, and there are people acting like it's a deal breaker to the service, or the end of the fucking world.
Noble Six Actual on
XBL: JerichoTwoFour / PSN: ZeroFourThree
0
Options
Ninja Snarl PMy helmet is my burden.Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered Userregular
And that is why this is a lame thread. Most of the discussion isn't about the $.50 a month price hike, it's about the xbox live service in general. So you get people who are way too emotional about a service they don't even use posting along side people that use the service, like it, and don't care about a small change in price.
Honestly, you'd think Microsoft was lobbying to ban free speech or something. Microsoft wants to make money, they can make money from Live, and so they charge for it. The only obligation they have to make consumers happy is purely to see how little effort they can give for the most money they can make. That's how every business which can actually be considered a business works. Hell, things like "customer service" only exist to keep people happy enough to keep buying products even after their current ones from the same company break.
I see people here fighting more vociferously over a lousy ten-dollar price increase than over, say, the fact that games in some European countries get outright banned because they have blood in them. This thing with Live matters far, far less than so very many things.
EDIT: I'm thinking we won't get another 3 pages before this thread gets locked.
the main point i think people need to realize is that if you compare the services, PSN falls flat
the connections for some games are great, like uncharted 2. then, there's killzone, and MAG, and well, pretty much everything i've played on it besides uncharted 2 had shit online connectivity. i would like to try MGS4 someday but i've heard that has good online too.
meanwhile, not only does the live service offer me reliable, good connections to games and unparalleled ease in friending and partying up with other gamers. it also gives me stellar XBLA titles like limbo, monday night combat, castle crashers, etc etc. it also gives me frequent opportunities to save money by renewing gold early. it also costs half as much as my netflix subscription, and like 1/12th my cost for internet.
the wii, i can't say i've tried online. i don't know much, but friend codes sounds like the lamest thing nintendo could have done with the online service. i get they want to be safe for kids but online simply brings in a different crowd and they should acknowledge that.
not really though
good money is spent securing the rights to those games for promotions like summer of arcade. those are still exclusive titles, despite being downloadable. a silver member gets those things a week later, which is enough for me. they should have access to the games, but they have to pay to play them online. monday night combat might not have much legs with no online.
also look at things like indie games, people on this forum have made and sold games on the service. all thanks, most likely, to money i spent supporting this service.
some people write those things off but they add to the experience and makes my investment feel justified.
5 bucks a month, big deal. I'm 35, if 5 bucks a month gets me bent out of shape, I fucked up somewhere along the way.
The amount isn't an issue, when my electric company charges me a "$2 processing fee" to pay with a credit card it isn't the $2 that's an affront, it's that they're charging me to fucking pay them
downloadable content is also withheld for a week, i had thought that included XBLA games. if i'm wrong it's still not the point i'm making.
i'm saying i'm happy to pay for the service because it provides me with excellent downloadable games, video features, and it's in an easy to use package with awesome first party titles. the money i pay for the service is ensuring i'll have more exclusives like dead rising: case zero or continued support for the games i play every week.
it's very much what sony is trying to do with the playstation plus idea, expand the pool of money they have to use to make the service seem worth using and worth paying for. incentives to better the service rather than relying on shitty ports, half-assed sims MMOs, or poorly designed menu and friend systems (since these things are why i chose 360 over PS3 they should indeed look at those things for the next round of consoles)
"83 cents a month more? Sure, anyone who complains about this is a tightwad cheap asshole who hates fun!"
"$50 more over the $250 extra Live users pay over the life of a 5 year console (maybe even more if it lasts longer)? What a bunch of tards, wonder if they realize how stupid they are paying so much cash just to do something that is free elsewhere."
Math is funny - but you shouldn't be using it here unless you are prepared to reap the whirlwind. How about people just admit that they either feel like their money is better spent elsewhere or they get some value out of the whole shebang?
Personally, I'd rather not pay, but then again, I don't and I'm fine with that.
"83 cents a month more? Sure, anyone who complains about this is a tightwad cheap asshole who hates fun!"
"$50 more over the $250 extra Live users pay over the life of a 5 year console (maybe even more if it lasts longer)? What a bunch of tards, wonder if they realize how stupid they are paying so much cash just to do something that is free elsewhere."
Math is funny - but you shouldn't be using it here unless you are prepared to reap the whirlwind. How about people just admit that they either feel like their money is better spent elsewhere or they get some value out of the whole shebang?
Personally, I'd rather not pay, but then again, I don't and I'm fine with that.
This.
Some don't get $60 worth of value out of this in a year, and they shouldn't be wasting their money on it.
I think I can get $60 worth of enjoyment out of it (been playing with old friends on Party mode a lot, plus I buy many weekly deals), so I will pay.
The thread title should really be "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T PAY FOR IT". Because that would cover probably 95% of the gripes in here. Folks really need to reconcile the fact that Microsoft charges for Live is because they can profit from it.
This doesn't work for most PC games because most of them don't know how to convince people to pay for that stuff. But for the few games where people do pay to play, they charge 2-3 times the cost of Live for playing a single game. And as always, it needs to be pointed out that even with PC games, somebody always has to cover the costs whether they be the publishers or the people who rent/own game servers.
Sony doesn't charge for PSN because they flat-out don't think they can convince people to pay for it and make a profit from it. They are not kind or generous, merely trying to spin something they suck at as a feature. Once they can get their network together, you can bet something like Live will show up for Playstation products.
Nintendo doesn't charge for online access because they barely have an online plan at all. But they don't even need the online service to be good and profitable because they rake in the cash by selling tons of Wiis and DS's and first-party games.
You can hate it all you want, but Microsoft is simply the first to get where everyone else is going. You can hate the price hike all you want, but it still just barely beats out inflation and Microsoft has every last little right to charge what they want for a completely optional service on a completely optional machine. Folks, gaming is a luxury, not a right. We are not entitled to be given what we want, we are only entitled to purchase what we enjoy. The only effective vote here is to simply vote with your wallet.
It's like the Ground Zero Mosque, Ninja. I realize it's legal and they have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it at all.
Would you be okay with if, eight years from now, MS announced that Live Gold (or the equivalent) on their new platform is now $72 a year?
Am I still hopping on to play Modern Warfare 32 with my friends in AK for about five hours, three or four times a week? Is my girlfriend still playing Rock Band 5 online? Then yeah, probably.
I play the system enough, online, that I can justify spending the money. Some people can't, or just don't want to.
Fine, whatever.
If my friends decides that Sony had it right all along, then no amount of XBOX exclusives or Gold features are gonna keep me, though.
Also, checked my email today. They sent an email about the change. Then something at the bottom caught my eye.
At only $5 per month, our 12-month offer continues to be your best value. And, because you are a loyal member, we want to give you the opportunity to lock in your current price with an additional discount. Click here or log on to Xbox LIVE from your console to review and take advantage of these limited time offers.
Following the link gave me the option to choose a 12 month $40 plan.
KoopahTroopahThe koopas, the troopas.Philadelphia, PARegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
I did not get such an email, but then again I don't like Microsoft or any other company automatically charging my account for new service fees whenever they feel like it.
So I usually get cards off of newegg. On a good day they sell for $35 a year.
5 bucks a month, big deal. I'm 35, if 5 bucks a month gets me bent out of shape, I fucked up somewhere along the way.
The amount isn't an issue, when my electric company charges me a "$2 processing fee" to pay with a credit card it isn't the $2 that's an affront, it's that they're charging me to fucking pay them
Really is the principle of the thing
Exactly. All the MS defenders are missing the damn point. No one is worried about getting together another 10 dollars over the course of 365 days.
anoffday on
Steam: offday
0
Options
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
5 bucks a month, big deal. I'm 35, if 5 bucks a month gets me bent out of shape, I fucked up somewhere along the way.
The amount isn't an issue, when my electric company charges me a "$2 processing fee" to pay with a credit card it isn't the $2 that's an affront, it's that they're charging me to fucking pay them
Really is the principle of the thing
Exactly. All the MS defenders are missing the damn point. No one is worried about getting together another 10 dollars over the course of 365 days.
As someone who has worked with payment processors, that fee is usually there to off-set the cost of the transaction to the seller; most POS systems have charges built-in (most likely a percentage) of the sub total so that they can make some money, too. Companies will often pass this charge on to the purchaser in the form of a fee. Splitting hairs, here, and getting away from the larger issue. But worth mentioning.
The only problem I have with this whole thing is that this makes a bunch of people I play online with unsure about renewing their Gold membership, which lowers the value of my own
My brothers don't have PS3's, so if I want to play a game with them after this I need to go to PC
Also, it's frustrating for them to increase the price of something without adding anything, but hey it's their business and their decision
joshofalltrades on
0
Options
DietarySupplementStill not approved by the FDADublin, OHRegistered Userregular
The only problem I have with this whole thing is that this makes a bunch of people I play online with unsure about renewing their Gold membership, which lowers the value of my own
My brothers don't have PS3's, so if I want to play a game with them after this I need to go to PC
Also, it's frustrating for them to increase the price of something without adding anything, but hey it's their business and their decision
I guess what I'm wondering is this: we can all sit around and bemoan the "same for more" argument but assuming, for a minute, that the 10 dollar increase is a profit motive: what will they do with the money they make as a result? If they really invest it into the system or develop new features in the future, I think it pays off after all, butthurt aside. Not like any of us can look into the books to see if the service is making money (we all assume it is), or if it's a break-even. The article linked yesterday on Tom's had "probably" in the title. My journalism teacher in college said that if anyone ever uses the world "probably" in a title or article, you can probably discount whatever the subject matter is.
DietarySupplement on
0
Options
GnomeTankWhat the what?Portland, OregonRegistered Userregular
edited August 2010
As others have said, and I agree: Either you get value out of 60 bucks a year, or you don't. I happen to, so the price increase, while annoying, is not going to change my subscription status.
Personally, I think 10 extra bucks a year is a pittance, but that's such a relative statement that trying to use it as a talking point is silly. For me, 10 bucks extra a year is a drop in the bucket. For others, it may be something they seriously need to think about.
The only problem I have with this whole thing is that this makes a bunch of people I play online with unsure about renewing their Gold membership, which lowers the value of my own
My brothers don't have PS3's, so if I want to play a game with them after this I need to go to PC
Also, it's frustrating for them to increase the price of something without adding anything, but hey it's their business and their decision
I guess what I'm wondering is this: we can all sit around and bemoan the "same for more" argument but assuming, for a minute, that the 10 dollar increase is a profit motive: what will they do with the money they make as a result? If they really invest it into the system or develop new features in the future, I think it pays off after all, butthurt aside. Not like any of us can look into the books to see if the service is making money (we all assume it is), or if it's a break-even. The article linked yesterday on Tom's had "probably" in the title. My journalism teacher in college said that if anyone ever uses the world "probably" in a title or article, you can probably discount whatever the subject matter is.
Really the first two sentences are the main thrust of my dissatisfaction with this and the third should have been a footnote, because it's of negligible importance as far as I'm concerned
But really I'll probably keep paying for the service because I'm a whore
Posts
I haven't paid for a movie ticket in over 2 years. I'm not paying $10.50 ($21 if I go with my wife) to see a two hour movie. I have gone to the movies (maybe 5 times in the past 2 years) when prompted by others, and they have purchased my ticket because they wanted to go.
I haven't bought a DVD in over a year unless it was in the $5 bargain bin or less. I don't have a Blu-ray player because there's no way I'm buying movies at those prices either. Also, no HDTV so it'd be worthless anyway.
I've been mooching off my father-in-law's Netflix account to watch movies via instant streaming, and I switched to Satellite TV to drop my costs per month about $25-30 vs cable, though since there's no options BUT cable (well, dial-up, but we're talking realistic options here) for internet, I'm stuck with that.
Soda is $4 a 12 pack. Guess what, I don't buy it at that price. I buy soda when it's $2.50 a 12 pack or less, and even then it depends on what my finances look like. Water from the tap is cheap.
I purchase maybe 4 games a year. I got my 360 last year when WalMart had Arcades for $100. I got Live for $40 because I was playing Borderlands regularly with a friend, but that will expire this November. I haven't played an online game in months, and have been mooching off my father-in-laws Netflix account on my 360. It's my only reason to have Gold right now.
Sure, I can renew at $40, and sure, $10 more isn't breaking my bank, but it's significant enough that I seriously compare getting another game a year or playing online. At this point, I'd rather get another game for the DS/Wii/360 than pay for Live. If my friends want to play online I'll find some free trial cards or something to play for however long it takes us to play through the game and move on.
I'm not saying it's not MS' right to make money, but it's a stupid move during the current economic climate when other viable alternatives exist and there really isn't anything added by Gold that hasn't already been available or is locked away until you subscribe to it as well. 1 v 100 was fun, I don't know why they cancelled it, but stuff like that is the real value behind having gold. They need to add more things like that if they want to entice more customers into paying for gold. Especially me.
tl:dr - I'd rather buy another game a year than pay for Live - it's not for me I guess.
I read something today though that said the family plan will only allow a selected offering of content or something.
I can see them gimping the family plan
Facebook: Free on PC, adds nothing to the value of the system
Twitter: The same
last.FM: once again.....
Netflix: people already pay for it but is actually good....
and ESPN
so basically fuck ESPN.
What frustrates me is that, other than Netflix, those things are pretty half-assed. Actual integration into the system (such as custom tracks while gaming with last.FM) would've changed them from "it's ok since I'm already pay for them" to an actual incentive.
Twitter
It's not that fact that it's $60 year
It's that NOONE else charges people anything for similar and arguably equal systems
This doesn't sound like you're on a smaller budget, this sounds like you're a cheap ass.
It doesn't sound like the price was increased due to inflation. I just want to know what the purpose of it is. $10 additional each year isn't anything to me really, but come on, I've been paying $50 a year for what amounts to peer-to-peer online games, which is shit I've been doing for free on the PC for a very, very long time. Considering the only games I play on the 360 online are fighters, and most tournaments use the PS3 versions anyhow, I might as well just drop Gold, buy arcade sticks for the PS3, and make that my main system.
Can you name an actual number that would be too much for you? What do they have to raise it to to make you unsubscribe?
They should lower the price not raising it the fucking scamming dick shits
The thread title should really be "IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, DON'T PAY FOR IT". Because that would cover probably 95% of the gripes in here. Folks really need to reconcile the fact that Microsoft charges for Live is because they can profit from it.
This doesn't work for most PC games because most of them don't know how to convince people to pay for that stuff. But for the few games where people do pay to play, they charge 2-3 times the cost of Live for playing a single game. And as always, it needs to be pointed out that even with PC games, somebody always has to cover the costs whether they be the publishers or the people who rent/own game servers.
Sony doesn't charge for PSN because they flat-out don't think they can convince people to pay for it and make a profit from it. They are not kind or generous, merely trying to spin something they suck at as a feature. Once they can get their network together, you can bet something like Live will show up for Playstation products.
Nintendo doesn't charge for online access because they barely have an online plan at all. But they don't even need the online service to be good and profitable because they rake in the cash by selling tons of Wiis and DS's and first-party games.
You can hate it all you want, but Microsoft is simply the first to get where everyone else is going. You can hate the price hike all you want, but it still just barely beats out inflation and Microsoft has every last little right to charge what they want for a completely optional service on a completely optional machine. Folks, gaming is a luxury, not a right. We are not entitled to be given what we want, we are only entitled to purchase what we enjoy. The only effective vote here is to simply vote with your wallet.
And that is why this is a lame thread. Most of the discussion isn't about the $.50 a month price hike, it's about the xbox live service in general. So you get people who are way too emotional about a service they don't even use posting along side people that use the service, like it, and don't care about a small change in price.
"Emotional" isn't even a strong enough word. It's ten fucking dollars, and there are people acting like it's a deal breaker to the service, or the end of the fucking world.
Honestly, you'd think Microsoft was lobbying to ban free speech or something. Microsoft wants to make money, they can make money from Live, and so they charge for it. The only obligation they have to make consumers happy is purely to see how little effort they can give for the most money they can make. That's how every business which can actually be considered a business works. Hell, things like "customer service" only exist to keep people happy enough to keep buying products even after their current ones from the same company break.
I see people here fighting more vociferously over a lousy ten-dollar price increase than over, say, the fact that games in some European countries get outright banned because they have blood in them. This thing with Live matters far, far less than so very many things.
EDIT: I'm thinking we won't get another 3 pages before this thread gets locked.
I guess it was spread out over the eight years that Live Gold has cost $50 a year, huh?
Would you be okay with if, eight years from now, MS announced that Live Gold (or the equivalent) on their new platform is now $72 a year?
the connections for some games are great, like uncharted 2. then, there's killzone, and MAG, and well, pretty much everything i've played on it besides uncharted 2 had shit online connectivity. i would like to try MGS4 someday but i've heard that has good online too.
meanwhile, not only does the live service offer me reliable, good connections to games and unparalleled ease in friending and partying up with other gamers. it also gives me stellar XBLA titles like limbo, monday night combat, castle crashers, etc etc. it also gives me frequent opportunities to save money by renewing gold early. it also costs half as much as my netflix subscription, and like 1/12th my cost for internet.
the wii, i can't say i've tried online. i don't know much, but friend codes sounds like the lamest thing nintendo could have done with the online service. i get they want to be safe for kids but online simply brings in a different crowd and they should acknowledge that.
plus who wants the ps3 i hear it has no games
Silver members can get XBLA games
Anything about XBLA is irrelevant
Some people would be okay with it and some wouldn't.
It's almost like people place different values on commodities!
good money is spent securing the rights to those games for promotions like summer of arcade. those are still exclusive titles, despite being downloadable. a silver member gets those things a week later, which is enough for me. they should have access to the games, but they have to pay to play them online. monday night combat might not have much legs with no online.
also look at things like indie games, people on this forum have made and sold games on the service. all thanks, most likely, to money i spent supporting this service.
some people write those things off but they add to the experience and makes my investment feel justified.
Some demos, yes
The amount isn't an issue, when my electric company charges me a "$2 processing fee" to pay with a credit card it isn't the $2 that's an affront, it's that they're charging me to fucking pay them
Really is the principle of the thing
i'm saying i'm happy to pay for the service because it provides me with excellent downloadable games, video features, and it's in an easy to use package with awesome first party titles. the money i pay for the service is ensuring i'll have more exclusives like dead rising: case zero or continued support for the games i play every week.
it's very much what sony is trying to do with the playstation plus idea, expand the pool of money they have to use to make the service seem worth using and worth paying for. incentives to better the service rather than relying on shitty ports, half-assed sims MMOs, or poorly designed menu and friend systems (since these things are why i chose 360 over PS3 they should indeed look at those things for the next round of consoles)
"$50 more over the $250 extra Live users pay over the life of a 5 year console (maybe even more if it lasts longer)? What a bunch of tards, wonder if they realize how stupid they are paying so much cash just to do something that is free elsewhere."
Math is funny - but you shouldn't be using it here unless you are prepared to reap the whirlwind. How about people just admit that they either feel like their money is better spent elsewhere or they get some value out of the whole shebang?
Personally, I'd rather not pay, but then again, I don't and I'm fine with that.
This.
Some don't get $60 worth of value out of this in a year, and they shouldn't be wasting their money on it.
I think I can get $60 worth of enjoyment out of it (been playing with old friends on Party mode a lot, plus I buy many weekly deals), so I will pay.
Twitter
Between XBLIG and XBLA and the enjoyment I get from them, I'll happily pay MS £whatever for Live just because.
When you throw stuff like Halo, Gears and Rock Band into the mix, yeah I'll pay to prop all that awesome up.
But the price isn't going up here anyway (for now) so meh.
It's like the Ground Zero Mosque, Ninja. I realize it's legal and they have the right to do it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it at all.
Am I still hopping on to play Modern Warfare 32 with my friends in AK for about five hours, three or four times a week? Is my girlfriend still playing Rock Band 5 online? Then yeah, probably.
I play the system enough, online, that I can justify spending the money. Some people can't, or just don't want to.
Fine, whatever.
If my friends decides that Sony had it right all along, then no amount of XBOX exclusives or Gold features are gonna keep me, though.
Following the link gave me the option to choose a 12 month $40 plan.
So by averages the change shouldn't really affect renewers till 2012.
Twitter
So I usually get cards off of newegg. On a good day they sell for $35 a year.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
As someone who has worked with payment processors, that fee is usually there to off-set the cost of the transaction to the seller; most POS systems have charges built-in (most likely a percentage) of the sub total so that they can make some money, too. Companies will often pass this charge on to the purchaser in the form of a fee. Splitting hairs, here, and getting away from the larger issue. But worth mentioning.
My brothers don't have PS3's, so if I want to play a game with them after this I need to go to PC
Also, it's frustrating for them to increase the price of something without adding anything, but hey it's their business and their decision
I guess what I'm wondering is this: we can all sit around and bemoan the "same for more" argument but assuming, for a minute, that the 10 dollar increase is a profit motive: what will they do with the money they make as a result? If they really invest it into the system or develop new features in the future, I think it pays off after all, butthurt aside. Not like any of us can look into the books to see if the service is making money (we all assume it is), or if it's a break-even. The article linked yesterday on Tom's had "probably" in the title. My journalism teacher in college said that if anyone ever uses the world "probably" in a title or article, you can probably discount whatever the subject matter is.
Personally, I think 10 extra bucks a year is a pittance, but that's such a relative statement that trying to use it as a talking point is silly. For me, 10 bucks extra a year is a drop in the bucket. For others, it may be something they seriously need to think about.
Really the first two sentences are the main thrust of my dissatisfaction with this and the third should have been a footnote, because it's of negligible importance as far as I'm concerned
But really I'll probably keep paying for the service because I'm a whore